Sniffer Dogs: Illegal Meat Imports

Lord Rotherwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they plan to train any more sniffer dogs at a reported cost of £30,000 each for the detection of illegal meats in light of reports that the existing dogs have been inoperative.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government are running a six-month pilot into the use of detector dogs, which concludes at the end of March. Decisions will be taken at that stage in conjunction with Customs and Excise, which will be taking over responsibility for anti-smuggling activity as soon as practicable. The two dogs have been operational most of the time and both have never been out of action at any one time. Evaluation of the pilot will inform decisions on the contribution that detector dogs make to the overall enforcement strategy on illegal imports of animal products.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Will he acknowledge, however, that the solutions in the DEFRA action pack produced in March 2002—nearly a year ago—have largely fallen flat on their face? There are no amnesty bins; the wording on the landing cards has yet to be agreed; the service agreement between DEFRA and Customs and Excise has yet to be implemented; and there has been a pitiful number of arrests of people bringing in illegal meat. Have not the Government largely failed in their policy on this matter?

Lord Whitty: No, my Lords; I do not accept that. There has been a major increase in the number of checks and the amount of illegal meat seized. The deterrence factor, in terms of publicity, has been substantial, and a major review has been undertaken of the jurisdiction of the various agencies—which, as I said, will involve Customs and Excise taking over responsibility for dealing with this illegal trade. So substantial progress has been made. Discussions are continuing on some of the issues referred to.

Baroness Strange: My Lords, does the Minister agree that two sniffer dogs are not many given the number of airports in this country?

Lord Whitty: Evidently, my Lords. But this is a pilot study—and, as the noble Lord's Question points out, quite an expensive one. Not every country which is admired for the effectiveness of its controls uses detector dogs—as I understand it, no other country in Europe does so. So we need to establish whether this method will be effective. That requires that the pilot study should run for a number of months. The dogs have been fairly successful: they are alleged to have made over 600 seizures.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as sniffer dogs are commonly used in Australia, has any check been made on results there?

Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. We have discussed with our Australian and New Zealand colleagues the way in which dogs are used under their regime. There are greater complexities in the UK; that is why we felt that a pilot study was necessary.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge that it is good to hear that the two dogs are back in action? I understand that one was sick and the other in danger of being electrocuted; in the interests of animal welfare, that is a good piece of news. But when will the first 100 dogs be present at every port and airport as part of the check on illegal meat? In my experience, a dog can sniff meat from 100 yards away; therefore, it should not be too difficult to train them.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are a number of points there. First, perhaps I may make it clear that the two dogs are part of a pilot project that needs to be completed before it is rolled out to a significant additional number of dogs. As regards the welfare of the two dogs, one was indeed subject to an electrical incident. However, at no point during the operation of the pilot scheme have both dogs been off at the same time. Therefore, we have always had canine influence at the border during the course of the pilot. I have had occasion previously to explain gently to Members of this House that it is not easy to switch other sniffer dogs on to the detection of food. Whether your Lordships like it or not, if a dog has been employed on drug duty and has acquired a taste for cocaine, he is unlikely to go after a smelly piece of meat!

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, are other, more sophisticated, more effective and possibly cheaper methods of detection being used by DEFRA to try to intercept illegal meat?

Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, other methods are being tried, and they are effective. I refer to an increase in manpower and a number of experiments relating to different forms of X-ray machinery. More effective than all of those is better intelligence and more effective police and enforcement operations, which is what Customs and Excise will bring to this task.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, further to the Question, will the Minister give the House a better idea as to when the service level agreement will be implemented? What is the Government's calculation as to the extra cost involved?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the service level agreement relates to the handover of these responsibilities to Customs and Excise. That is being finalised. It is anticipated that Customs and Excise will take over this responsibility with effect from 1st April. As to additional cost, the spending settlement allocated, over the period of the spending review, an additional £25 million, most of which would be spent on detection at this level.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what breed of dog is being used? Will this involve the hereditary principle?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, both dogs are fully appointed. Our remaining hereditary element will be pleased to know that they are thoroughbred Labradors.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, is the Minister aware of a private organisation in the north of England called, I believe, Dog Leads, that trains sniffer dogs in the detection of money, drugs, dead bodies and so forth? I am sure that those dogs could be used for less than £30,000 per trained animal. I believe that the organisation has quite a number of dogs available. Possibly the Government should take advantage of that organisation.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not aware of the precise organisation referred to by the noble Lord, but were the experiment to be rolled out, then we would need to make use of more dog trainers. However, the cost of £30,000 does not cover only training, it also covers kennelling and handling. Those expenses must be taken into account when assessing the effectiveness of this method of detection.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the worrying report on food safety published last week by the World Health Organisation? It stresses the need to detect illegal imports of food for the safety of the nation.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes, we are aware of the report, along with many other reports covering the need to improve the detection and enforcement of the now more stringent European controls. However, it is important that noble Lords recognise that when dealing with disease, whether in animals or human disease, then our internal controls against the spread of disease are just as important as measures undertaken to prevent diseased meat or other products coming into the country in the first place.

Euro

Lord Lea of Crondall: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in the course of drawing up their report on the five economic tests, there are any contacts taking place with the European Union institutions, assisting common working assumptions about any path for United Kingdom entry into the euro-zone.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, government officials regularly travel to Brussels to discuss EU business. The Government will recommend UK membership of EMU only if it is in the national economic interest and the economic case for joining is clear and unambiguous. A comprehensive and rigorous assessment of the five economic tests will be completed within two years of the start of this Parliament.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Given the referendum commitment and all that it entails, it may be that the Government's intended sequence of first pronouncing on the five tests with 14 studies and only then—here I quote from the Treasury Select Committee document of 6th September—making them all,
	"subject to intensive public debate and scrutiny",
	is back to front. Would not one way to cut through this Gordian knot be to follow up the useful discussions now taking place with members of the EU on growth, stability and jobs—basically the fifth test—and to do the same for business cycles, housing markets and price differentials, thus helping to demystify all these issues in public before the Cabinet makes its definitive judgment?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree that we strongly support multilateral surveillance and the stability and growth pact process. We have always co-operated fully with it. However that is different from the question regarding the recommendation of UK membership of EMU. When we publish the results of the assessments and the supporting studies, the people of this country will expect us to make a recommendation at the same time.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, are the Government looking at how many current members of the euro-zone would meet the five tests? Would it not be better to concede that it is impossible to give a guarantee on sustainable convergence and instead to make the case for entry being in the public interest?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think I answered that point in my first response. It is our view that we would recommend membership only if it were in the national economic interest. Any developments in other euro-zone countries are matters for them and for the finance Ministers of the 11 euro-zone countries.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, is it not a complete contradiction of all the Government have said about open government for the Chancellor to keep the five tests to himself, excluding public discussion, guarding them jealously and sitting on them rather like a broody hen hatching her eggs?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not recognise that description at all. Since the beginning of the process in 1997, the five tests have been well publicised and there has never been any inhibition of public discussion on them. In September last year the paper for the Treasury Select Committee was produced, which was a detailed report on the supporting studies. However, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, will recognise that the difficulty we face is that any injudicious statements made by Treasury Ministers are taken—always wrongly—by the press and some politicians to be prejudgments of the conclusion of a process which is not yet complete.

Lord Radice: My Lords, the Chancellor is correct to insist on getting the economics of entry right. However, does my noble friend agree that the Chancellor must avoid the excessive caution shown by his predecessors, which led to us opting out of both the Schumann plan and the common market and then joining too late?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Radice, is correct in his economic history. His qualifications in that area are much better than mine. However, I suspect that the mistakes to which he refers took place under Conservative governments.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the European Commission has recently agreed to waive the need for the United Kingdom to participate in the exchange rate mechanism for a period of two years?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. We never had any intention of joining the exchange rate mechanism and it is useful that the assessment of the European Commission, to be discussed at ECOFIN on 18th February, confirms what my noble friend has said.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, as the Brussels institutions referred to in the Question have repeatedly pointed out that the implications of developing the euro-zone are both political and constitutional, would it not be right to add to the five tests as an element for public debate the fact that this is a constitutional and political issue? Why do Ministers continue to deny that when those issues, rather than the economic tests, which are bound to be ambiguous, are what are before us?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have always been of the view that politically there are significant advantages to us in membership of the euro and that there is no constitutional bar to our membership of the euro. Therefore, we insist that it comes down to the economics of the issue. Whatever the politics or the constitutional position, it would be madness for us to enter the euro unless the economic conditions were right. I should have thought that that would be accepted in all parts of the House.

Lord Peston: My Lords, is my noble friend not slightly puzzled—this point is connected with the question of my noble friend Lord Barnett—that our economy at present easily meets the conditions of the growth and stability pact, compared with some countries that are already in EMU? We meet the conditions easily, yet we are still shilly-shallying about joining; whereas others who are already in could not enter if they had to meet the criteria at present.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, again, I do not recognise the relevance of the phrase "shilly-shallying". We set out our timetable and we propose to stick to it. That is not to say that my noble friend Lord Peston is not right—if that is not a double negative. I mean to say that he is right: we meet the conditions of the stability and growth pact. It is useful to have the Commission's recent confirmation that our interpretation—the prudent interpretation—of the stability and growth pact is gaining ground in Europe.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, the Minister referred to public debate. Does he agree that so far, that debate has been confined to a small part of the public? It is vital that on the issue of the single currency—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, involves constitutional issues—the wider public is involved in the debate, and the sooner the better for all. Will the Government therefore take some steps to involve the wider public?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly agree that the widest possible debate is necessary; I do not agree that that wide debate is not taking place. I had the misfortune when in the cinema on Saturday night to sit through a revolting advertisement from the No Campaign, which included clips of a double for Adolf Hitler, saying, "Kein Reich! Kein Volk! Kein Euro!" That was in appalling taste. I had thought that the No Campaign had recognised that that advertisement was in appalling taste and was going to withdraw it.

House of Lords: Medical Cover

Baroness Trumpington: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	Whether the medical cover provided for Members and staff of the House of Lords and visitors to the House satisfies health and safety regulations.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords. Although the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and health and safety regulations made under Section 15 of that Act do not apply to Parliament, the House of Lords applies their provisions as if they did.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord—I am not sure whether he is still my noble friend—for that rather small reply. What happens after six o'clock in the evening, when I understand that there is no nurse or doctor present in the Houses of Parliament? I am worried not about the Members in the Chamber, but about the people in the kitchens, if there were an accident, or a visitor, who could either have a fall or suffer some kind of seizure. What immediate provision is ready for their benefit?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the role of the practice nurse, who is present to provide non-urgent, walk-in treatment for Members and staff. She has no formal role in dealing with emergencies, so her absence has no bearing on compliance with health and safety regulations. Nevertheless, in response to requests from Members, the Parliamentary Medical Panel, which is composed of medically qualified Members of both Houses, has considered options for extending the service. The panel has rejected that idea and believes that cover by the qualified first-aiders, of whom there more than 30 in this House alone, is the better way to provide cover.
	In addition, negotiations are currently under way with a practice near the Palace to provide a full GP service. Although off-site, there would be 24-hour cover, considerably strengthening medical services for Members.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, has the efficacy of the first aid arrangements been subject to audit? I understand that before Christmas, a member of the kitchen staff sustained a bad scald and was sitting for a long time untreated. There is good clinical evidence that if scalds are treated immediately, they respond much better than if they are left for several minutes—let alone for up to half an hour—without being adequately treated. I understand that a couple of fractures have also been sustained by members of staff in the men's toilets.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Baroness is of course well qualified to raise those matters. I am not aware whether those trained in first aid—as I said, more than 30 members of staff, police and security officers hold first-aid qualifications—are audited. However, in the cases to which the noble Baroness referred, I should have thought that an ambulance should have been called and the person involved taken to St Thomas's.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am told that ambulances have not known where to come. Would it not be possible to have someone at the gate alerted that an ambulance is expected? I also thank the Attendants very much for the training that they have undertaken and hope that in due course one of them will give me the kiss of life, if necessary.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, on the latter point, any of them would be delighted to do so. On my noble friend's first point—I shall call her my noble friend—the time taken for ambulances to arrive here is monitored on each occasion. I understand that it is approximately 12 minutes, on average. Obviously, ambulance personnel should know where to come and someone should be there to guide them to the right place. I shall ensure that that is done.

Lord Addington: My Lords, what is the position of Members' staff, advisers and researchers? How do they fit in? Does the House have any official responsibility for those people, who after all allow us to function?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if they are employed by the House, they are covered by the health and safety at work regulations, which is more than can be said for your Lordships, who are of course not employed by the House. To that extent, cover is provided for the staff rather than for us. I imagine that those who are not employed by the House would fall under the category of third parties. It is a requirement under the regulations that those in control of premises should take reasonable care to ensure that those premises are safe for third parties.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, does the noble Lord not consider the average time of 12½ minutes that it takes an ambulance to get here rather long? After all, St Thomas's is just the other side of the river; one can see it easily from here; and, on average, one could bicycle there in half that time.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that might be the case if the ambulances came from St Thomas's, which they do not.

North Sea Oilfields

Lord Hardy of Wath: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which of the main North Sea oilfields are now producing at well below their peak levels and what steps are being taken to enhance recovery by CO 2 injection or by any other method.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, UK oil production peaked in 1999 and is beginning to decline. Most producing oilfields, including Forties and Brent, are below their peak levels. Government and the industry are actively engaged in maximising economic recovery of hydrocarbons, including by application of enhanced oil recovery techniques. Such techniques—for example gas injection and depressurisation—are being used in the Brent and Brae areas. CO 2 injection, mentioned in the Question, is currently being studied.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Will the Government ensure that more public attention is given to the current work that he mentioned? Given the production peak offshore and the increasing dependency on overseas oil and gas supplies, will the Government support greater investment and endeavour in order that we maximise the United Kingdom energy yield?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Lord said. There has been work on all the technologies for many years. The zero emissions technology group is working continually on environmental risks, economics, legal issues and international co-operation. For many years, because of lower energy prices, many attractive techniques have simply not been economical.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the injection of CO 2 into suitable depleted reservoirs of oil can enhance production by some 10 to 15 per cent, as has been demonstrated in the United States and Canada? Does he not agree, therefore, that that could be linked with the development of plants for clean coal technology improvement with CO 2 extraction, thus contributing to the long-term benefits of the coal and oil industries?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, again, I agree with all of that. The Government are keen on CO 2 injection. For that reason, we announced in the last Budget a 70 per cent tax relief on enhanced oil recovery using CO 2 injection in petroleum revenue tax areas, and 40 per cent elsewhere. So, we are giving fiscal encouragement. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will recognise, there are legal problems. There is the question whether the use of CO 2 injection or CO sequestration techniques conflict with international conventions on dumping waste at sea.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that oilfields normally peak in their first three or four years, but then continue in production for at least 20 years? Are the Government making arrangements to ensure that as much oil as possible is saved?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have before me a table of all the oilfields and their production since 1975. I shall spare the House my reading them out. Although it is technically possible to continue to extract oil for many years after the peak, it is not necessarily economically worth while.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of the 10 per cent supplementary charge, announced in the 2002 Budget, on the producers of oil and gas on the United Kingdom continental shelf? I wish to know, in particular, its impact on investment in exploration, development of the shelf and employment, particularly in Scotland.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, issues of past taxation policy are not relevant to the Question on enhanced oil recovery. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will be aware that we have been encouraging further exploration. For example, in the last Budget we increased first-year capital allowances from 25 per cent to 100 per cent. We have also abolished the royalty on the older fields.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, will the Minister enlarge on his reference to the sequestration of CO2? Is there not international agreement that sequestration of CO2 under sea is environmentally desirable and acceptable, far from being a dumping of toxic waste?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wish that that were the case. I agree that there are many advantages of sequestration, which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out, both in where the CO 2 comes from and where it goes to. Integrated gasification combined-cycle technology, which is the technique referred to, has considerable advantages. But, although it may not be a welcome fact, there are claims that, under the London Convention and the Ospar Convention, they constitute dumping waste at sea. Certain legal issues must be sorted out.

Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, have any abandoned fields been brought on-stream again as a result of enhanced recovery techniques?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry, I do not know. I shall write to the noble Lord.

Anti-war Demonstration, Hyde Park

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What were the reasons for banning an anti-war demonstration in Hyde Park on 15th February.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has announced, after considering alternative venues, none of which was suitable for the very large numbers of people involved, that approval has now been given for the use of Hyde Park for this rally. The Government never banned the march. Our concern has been about the safety of those taking part in a rally in Hyde Park that would continue after dark and where the ground conditions are far from ideal. The Royal Parks and the police will now work closely with the rally organisers to ensure as far as possible the safety of those attending.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that excellent Answer. I think that she has answered all my questions. Given that for two months there has been a tented city called Star Trek on the grass near Marble Arch, it seems odd to prevent people walking on the grass in other parts of the park, even if they would get their feet muddy. I congratulate my noble friend and wish her every success in the march in a couple of weeks' time.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his congratulations. Star Trek is held in tented accommodation, so it is covered. Although it is very popular, the number attending is not 400,000, which is the number projected by the organisers of the CND demonstration on 15th February.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, a spat arose after the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said, quite rightly, that large numbers of people in a park at this time of year would cause damage. There is no criticism of that. But why was she pushed front stage on the issue? Would it not have been a better strategy of damage limitation for the Government if the Home Secretary had taken all the opinions, including that of the noble Baroness's colleague, and kept her in the background? She has enough to contend with at the moment without having to be criticised on that matter.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am always grateful to the Liberal Democrat Front-Benchers for advice on damage limitation. Responsibility for the Royal Parks is a matter for the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. She is perfectly willing to take the difficult decisions needed on such issues. She can certainly find enough time to do so.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not a CND march; it is a much broader anti-war coalition? I declare an interest as someone who will take part in the demonstration and the rally. I issue an invitation to any noble Lords who wish to join us. They will be extremely welcome, as will members of the Government Front Bench.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords are very grateful for the invitation that has just been issued.

European Parliament (Representation) Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

House of Lords Reform

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Lords reform has been quite a long story; today's votes in both Houses are not, of course, the end of it. It is possible that today may be decisive and will determine the broad shape of the House in the future.
	I will say something about today's procedure. I remind your Lordships that, when the noble Lord, Lord Renton, intervened a few days ago and suggested that 15 hours and 98 speakers might approach a reasonable sufficiency—

Noble Lords: Hear, hear.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: There was that sort of growl of approval. After any speeches, I shall formally move all seven Motions in turn. As I reminded the House a few days ago, a vote for one option does not pre-empt any of your Lordships from voting for any other options or indeed, should your Lordships so desire, for all of them.
	Tellers will have to be appointed, and voices on both sides will be heard in the Chamber at the three-minute mark in the usual way. All of us are free to vote "Content" or "Not Content" to as many of the Motions as we choose. Your Lordships will remember that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, speaking, I think, on behalf of the Joint Committee, asked us to give our views on each of the options. Voting "Content" would mean, therefore, that one would regard that option as acceptable—not necessarily the best, but, at least, acceptable. Voting "Not Content" means that one would regard that particular option as not acceptable.
	I shall vote for a 100 per cent elected down to 50 per cent elected House and against all other offers.
	Moved, That this House approves Option 1 (fully appointed) in the report from the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I rise to say only one or two things. As the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House correctly said, we are going to have seven very important votes. I hope that noble Lords will approach those votes with a sense that they are all significant. I can confirm from this part of the House—something that is echoed in all parts of the House—that it will be a genuinely free vote. I do not really need to say "genuinely" because, in our party, all free votes are genuinely free votes. There has been one important change since we debated the matter: the Prime Minister has said that he is not in favour of elections, and noble Lords should, therefore, be aware that, almost whatever happens, there is unlikely to be any legislation this side of the next general election.
	The noble and learned Lord said how he was going to vote. I hope that, at the end of the debate, the Joint Committee will be asked to work up at least more than one option, to give us a further choice. We have time on our side. Just as I did in 1999, I will vote against an appointed House that has not a single guarantee or safeguard attached to it. Equally, I will vote for Option 4, which preserves the independent Cross Benches but allows for election of the political House. I hope that the Joint Committee will study the practicality of elections as a whole. We can then return to consideration of those detailed options and carry our debate further.
	The House has won respect for its famously open mind. I hope today that we will not close our minds finally to alternative futures and that, as the Prime Minister leaps forward so eagerly to grasp the appointed House that we denied him in 1999, some noble Lords, at least, will ask themselves the old Roman question: cui bono?

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I do not intend to make a speech beyond saying that we should vote for the future. I call on other noble Lords not to make speeches either.

Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I shall give a short explanation of the vote that I propose to make, which is in favour of Option 1. My reason for so doing is that I do not believe that this House should at any point challenge the power of the House of Commons. There should be no electoral challenge to the House of Commons.
	I draw the House's attention to paragraph 75 of the committee's report, which says:
	"The appointed element should be nominated by a new independent statutory Appointments Commission whose principal function would be to ensure a quality of representativeness and regional balance in the reformed House".
	I believe in that, which is why I propose to support Option 1.

On Question, Whether the said Motion (Option 1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 335; Not-Contents, 110.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, however, I now move Motion No. 2: fully elected.
	Moved, That this House approves Option 2 (fully elected) in the report from the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Whether the said Motion (Option 2) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 329.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name: 80 per cent appointed/20 per cent elected.
	Moved, That this House approves Option 3 (80 per cent appointed/20 per cent elected) in the report from the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Whether the said Motion (Option 3) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 375.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper: 80 per cent elected/20 per cent appointed.
	Moved, That this House approves Option 4 (80 per cent elected/20 per cent appointed) in the report from the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Whether the said Motion (Option 4) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 338.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the fifth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper: 60 per cent appointed/40 per cent elected.
	Moved, That this House approves Option 5 (60 per cent appointed/40 per cent elected) in the report from the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Whether the said Motion (Option 5) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 358.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the sixth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper: 60 per cent elected/40 per cent appointed.
	Moved, That this House approves Option 6 (60 per cent elected/40 per cent appointed) in the report from the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
	On Question, whether the said Motion (Option 6) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 317.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the final Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper: 50 per cent appointed/50 per cent elected.
	Moved, That this House approves Option 7 (50 per cent appointed/50 per cent elected) in the report from the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Whether the said Motion (Option 7) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 322.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
	Clause 5 [Role of court administration councils]:

Lord Dixon-Smith: moved Amendment No. 24:
	Page 3, line 23, at beginning insert "after consultation with the chairman and deputy chairmen of any local justice area affected by the recommendations"

Lord Dixon-Smith: We come back down to earth with a bump, from dealing with matters that are of immense historical and strategic importance, to a matter which is of intimate importance to local people around the country. Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 are simple, but important. The first seeks to ensure that when a court administration council makes a recommendation to the Lord Chancellor which might affect a local justice area, it will consult the people involved in that area before any recommendation is made. Indeed, I am sure that in her response the noble Baroness on the Front Bench opposite will confirm that that will be the case.
	Amendment No. 25 is similarly directed, its purpose being to improve what I choose to call the "local ownership" of the courts and the Court Service. It would provide that, if a recommendation is made by a court administration council to the Lord Chancellor with which the Lord Chancellor then disagrees, there would be an opportunity for it to be sent back and reconsidered. The debate should continue until agreement on what is to take place is reached between both parties; that is, the court administration council and the Lord Chancellor.
	At present the Bill is explicit and incomplete. It gives powers to the Lord Chancellor to appoint the court administration council, the chairmen, clerks and chief executives of the local bench, and to settle matters such as salaries and remuneration. In reality, these matters will be dealt with initially by the noble and learned Lord's department and ultimately by the executive agency. However, as the Bill is drafted, no way is provided for resolving a disagreement between a local court administration council and the Lord Chancellor. I submit in all seriousness that such means of resolution ought to be in place.
	We have already debated at length the question of local ownership. I support entirely the proposal for a unified court administration and I believe that great improvements will be brought about. However, perhaps I may use the old cliche and say that the devil is in the detail. The difficulty I face, along with other Members of the Committee and, I suspect, the noble Baroness on the Front Bench opposite, is that we do not yet have the detail. I do not think that we shall be in a position to approve the legislation until we know how it is to work. I beg to move.

Lord Waddington: Perhaps I may I remind the Committee that the statement placed in the Library of the House on 4th December referred to "agency chief officers" managing local areas. Thus in Clause 5 the term "Lord Chancellor" means, in effect, the agency chief officer, it being to him or her that the court administration council would make its recommendations. I hope that I am right on the point, but I imagine that that will be the reality of the situation.
	We know from our earlier debates and as a result of Clause 4(4) that there may be only one lay justice serving the council. Furthermore, at present we have no idea how big may be the area to be represented by a council. In those circumstances surely it would be quite unreasonable to expect one justice to be able to speak for all the Benches in the area. We should put in place a requirement for the council to consult all the chairmen and deputy chairmen affected. I therefore support the amendment.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: I rise with diffidence. There are those in the Chamber closer to the magistracy than I am. My claim is that my wife was a magistrate on Haringey Bench for many years. I have received a letter from Mrs Hilary Kirkham, who is the chairman of the Bench, drawing attention to some amendments supported by her and her colleagues, on which we may touch later.
	I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who has a wealth of experience and speaks with authority, but before hearing my noble friend the Minister speak I hesitate fully to support his intention. I cannot really believe that the Ministers and civil servants involved in drafting the Bill have not had due regard to what must be essential—at all stages to take along with them the people on the ground.
	The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, whose experience I respect, rightly draws attention to the fact that there will be only one magistrate on what one might call the key body. It may be quality; it is at least a voice. I am certain that the way in which democracy works is that, if that is how my noble friend tells us it is to be, steps will be taken to ensure that whenever the one magistrate speaks, he or she will have taken fully into account observations received from colleagues.
	These are early days. I imagine that some flexibility and discretion must be exercised by everyone at this stage. If my noble friend can assure me that she is well aware that people outside the House are concerned, watching and waiting for what I call kind words from her, that will satisfy me; I hope that it will satisfy them.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. They approach the matter constructively in an attempt to improve consultation and conflict resolution. I am sure that the Government are at one with him on that.
	I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was here last week when we discussed in detail the objections of the Magistrates' Association and the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees to the Government's proposals for the setting up of CACs and the apparent—I emphasise that word—withdrawal of a local voice from those bodies. Members of the Committee who were here will know that there was much passion on all sides about the matter. As my noble friend carefully pointed out in his opening remarks, today we are considering ways in which we can try to make the Government's proposals work better, if we end up with them.
	I should find it most helpful if the Minister could say that she would welcome a meeting with a representative from each of the Benches who took part in that passionate debate last week, because behind the passion is determination on all sides to ensure that the Government's objectives are not undermined, but that the local voice of magistrates remains. We heard the assurances that the Minister gave last night. If she can accept my request for a meeting, it may be helpful if it were to involve one representative each from the Official Opposition Benches, from the Liberal Democrat Benches and from the Cross-Benches. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, has had a great interest in the matter.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I should be delighted to have the meeting the noble Baroness suggests. As I said last time we debated the Bill, Government and Opposition Members have the same intent and desire. I should be happy to have such a meeting so that we can consider how better to hone some of the provisions we have debated. That is a fine idea; I accept it without reservation.
	I am happy to give my noble friend Lord Graham the reassurance that he seeks. As we have said, it is extremely important that the magistracy fully understand the nature of the changes and are fully involved and consulted.
	The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would require court administration councils to consult the chairmen and deputy chairmen of local justice areas affected by their recommendations before making those recommendations to the Lord Chancellor. I have said, but perhaps it is right that I repeat, that we are dealing not just with magistrates' courts but with county courts and the Crown Court. There will be circumstances in which it is entirely appropriate for the council to consult the representatives of the local magistracy—perhaps the chairman of local justice areas or maybe all local magistrates, depending on the nature of the recommendations. Equally, there will be times when the council's recommendations affect only the county courts or Crown Court, in which case it should involve others in the deliberations.
	The amendment is therefore too restrictive. This is one of the issues on which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will issue guidance to councils, as we discussed when the Committee last met on 28th January. I then gave a clear undertaking that we will give due consideration to how to ensure the correct parliamentary scrutiny of such guidance. But even that guidance will not seek to be unduly prescriptive. This is an issue on which we must afford the councils some discretion. As I said, we must bear in mind that each council will have at least one magistrate among its members—as my noble friend Lord Graham and others mentioned—who will be best able to advise the council on which issues will interest the local magistracy.
	It would be inappropriate to bind the council to an unduly restrictive statutory process that is unfit for the purpose. The local chief officer will be under an obligation to involve the magistracy, just as the Court Service is obliged to do so under the terms of its framework document. Benches of magistrates associated with individual magistrates' courts will also still have influence over the operation of those courts. For example, they will continue to be consulted administratively on decisions to assign and replace justices' clerks. Benches and Bench chairmen must all feel that they have productive relationships with their clerks and administrators.
	We want magistrates to have a say in how they should be involved in the agency's work. The answers may vary between areas, and it is right that the arrangements should do so, too. But we will explore whether it would be appropriate for the court administration councils to establish consultative arrangements with the magistrates in their area through, for example, a consultative panel. So we are open to looking at which vehicles we can use to deliver what noble Lords have indicated they would most like. I hope that, with that explanation, I can invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I heard what the noble Baroness had to say. I would be the first to recognise the deficiencies of my amendment. For a moment, I thought that the noble Baroness would volunteer to take it over and put it right. It was a vain hope. She is in the position of having brought a wonderful invention before a court of adjudicators. It may be a wonderful invention, but the court of adjudicators has spotted a hole in it. Whenever we try to fill the hole, or find out what goes into it, we get an imprecise answer. We are in danger of sounding like a gramophone record with the needle stuck—a passe picture but the best I can think of.
	However, I take encouragement from the fact that the noble Baroness welcomes a meeting. We should not allow the legislation to go forward with this appalling gap. I accept that the circumstances of each court administration council will be difficult. None the less, the Bill contains a requirement for the membership of court administration councils. It may be a minimum requirement, but, as I argued, it is insufficient.
	I accept that other court interests must be taken into account. I had hoped that the noble Baroness might provide the solution, building on my suggestion. That has not happened. But we have the meeting, the results of which I look forward to. I beg the noble Baroness not to try to pursue the Bill further without filling the information gap. That needs to be done before we can approve the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: moved Amendment No. 24A:
	Page 3, line 23, leave out "in" and insert "with particular reference to"

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The amendment also stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Kingsland. Very appropriately, it has been grouped with Amendment No. 27. I readily acknowledge that, if Amendment No. 27 is unsuccessful and subsection (3) is not deleted, my amendment will not make much sense. There is a transparent contradiction between the two.
	In response to various amendments on Clause 4, the Minister, not without persuasive effect, argued that, as there was not yet a set model for the court administration council areas and as the Government were carrying out consultation, our appropriate course of action was to await the outcome of consultation. That is not a bad argument. We might argue that it would have been more appropriate to begin consulting earlier so that, by the time we debated the matter, we would have some idea of the Government's thoughts as a result of the consultation. The Minister seemed more than a little hurt that the Government, having carried out consultation for once, should be criticised for doing so. I do not criticise her for that. It is not a feeble argument. The obverse of what she said is that the Government do not yet have a clearly defined view on the appropriate size of a court administration council area in England or Wales. If that is correct, it follows that the areas cannot be so obvious or naturally fixed as to be constant for ever.
	Subsection (3) restricts court administration councils, which can provide recommendations under subsection (1), but cannot do so,
	"on matters which do not relate specifically to the area for which the council is established".
	There is an inherent contradiction. On the one hand, the Government are not yet clear on what the areas should be; on the other hand, they say that a council shall not offer advice to the Lord Chancellor unless it relates specifically to the area for which it is responsible. That is odd and wrong. As the Minister will appreciate from my previous interventions, I do not argue that the general duty imposed upon the Lord Chancellor should be diminished in any way. He should continue to hold that duty. But subsection (3) should be deleted. It is far too specific and restrictive.
	It would be more appropriate for the Lord Chancellor to follow my suggestion in Amendment No. 27A. The court administration council should give advice "with particular reference"—no more than that—to the area for which it is established. That is logical and sensible. It is extraordinary that if, for example, a council says that its area is unnatural and should be extended in a certain direction, the Lord Chancellor does not have to give the recommendation less regard than he might give to one relating to the council's area; rather, he is entitled under subsection (3) simply to ignore it. I do not suggest that this Lord Chancellor or any future one would do that. But his officials would be entitled to say that they did not need to listen further to a council's recommendation because it did not relate specifically to the area for which it was responsible.
	I seek to amend the Bill to allow the Lord Chancellor's general duty to prevail, as it should. However, he should not be in a position to ignore a recommendation because it does not relate specifically to a council's area. In some circumstances it may be very appropriate for a council to say that its area is of the wrong size or location and that activity carried out along the motorway from it is imposing an excessive burden on it. It would be unusual and unattractive if that recommendation were not considered. I cannot see why the Lord Chancellor should not be great and grand enough to accept the advice of a council on matters not relating exclusively to the area for which it is responsible.
	In that context, my amendment would provide that a council's recommendations should be only "with particular reference to" the area for which it is established. That should not mean that councils are wholly excluded from offering advice on matters relating to adjoining areas or those of a broader and more general character. It is only in that context that I move the amendment.

Lord Borrie: Does the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, envisage that the council for one area would offer recommendations relating to a neighbouring area where there is another council? Is not the noble and learned Lord's proposal a recipe for conflict between court administration councils?

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: That is why I was careful to indicate that I thought that the general duty imposed on the Lord Chancellor of the day should be maintained. I can understand readily why the Lord Chancellor of the day, if faced with an opinion from one court administration council that relates to the area of another council, should weigh in the balance the value of what is being said. I cannot see what is unusual or unacceptable about that.
	Following on from what the Minister said, I object to the idea that those areas are not absolutely fixed and naturally determined. The Government do not, as yet, know what the areas should be. The Lord Chancellor, in the exercise of his general duty, will be in a position to say, "Of course, I give greater weight to the council that represents this area". However, there may also be occasions on which he will want to say, "I have listened to what the adjoining council had to say and it has made a good point". As matters stand, he need not even consider the views of the adjoining council because, if the matter does not relate specifically to its area, its views will be taken off the desk and ignored. I beg to move.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: I would like to say—

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I would not normally dare to rise before the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who has given longer service in this House and another place than I. The Chairman of Committees has been extremely helpful to us this afternoon, so I shall try to keep to the order. One of my amendments is grouped with Amendment No. 24A, so it may be convenient for the Committee if I speak briefly to Amendment No. 26 now. I endorse everything that my noble and learned friend said about Amendments Nos. 24A and 27.
	Amendment No. 26 relates to the way in which the Lord Chancellor will use the recommendations to which my noble and learned friend referred to inform his decisions about how best to fulfil his duty. The Bill requires the Lord Chancellor to,
	"give due consideration to recommendations provided by the councils".
	My amendment would change that to a requirement to "have regard" to recommendations provided by the councils, and I use it as a device to ask the Minister to explain to the Committee the exact nature of the requirement on the Lord Chancellor. Does the phrase "due consideration" mean that the Lord Chancellor will have to consider the recommendations but will then be given unfettered discretion to follow or reject them, for whatever reason, without giving those reasons?

Lord Waddington: I am also troubled by Clause 5(3), but the noble Baroness may be able to remove my worries. It is one thing for a court administration council to seek to make recommendations about how another council does its work in its area and another for a council not to be able to make any recommendation to the Lord Chancellor on the lines that experience has shown that the boundaries between two areas have been wrongly drawn. That is the point. If my reading of it is correct, Clause 5(3) would stop a council commenting even on that. I cannot believe that that is the Government's intention.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: I was interested in what was said about the Lord Chancellor not even having to take views into account. That is right, but it would be a queer Lord Chancellor who was not made aware of nuances and feelings. They will all have the opportunity—such as the one that I am using now—of being approached by friendly magistrates asking for their point of view to be considered.
	As I read the Bill and other papers, it seems that the intention is to focus attention or concentration in an area on the things that affect that area. I do not think for a moment that there is likely to be a free-for-all, in which councils not only try to improve and look after their own patch but are free to comment on others. All of us have experience of magistrates; they are a powerful bunch. They are well appointed, well experienced and conscious of the important part that they play in a community. There will be few, if any, occasions on which people will want to interfere in, adjust or influence matters outside their own patch. I will be interested in what the Minister says about the danger of that happening, but I cannot see the value of the amendment.

Lord Goodhart: I am happy to support the amendments, particularly Amendment No. 27.
	The clause seems almost to be offensive to court administration councils. Subsection (1) requires councils to provide the Lord Chancellor with recommendations about his duties in the area in which the council is established. Under subsection (2), the Lord Chancellor must give due consideration to those recommendations. Clearly, the Lord Chancellor is not required to give due consideration—indeed, any consideration—to recommendations that go outside the area for which the council is established. Nevertheless, a court administration council may, on occasion, wish to do so. The recommendations that it makes may be sensible and helpful, and, in those circumstances, the Lord Chancellor may wish to consider them, whether or not he is under an obligation to do so.
	It seems pointless and, as I said, virtually offensive to the councils to include the extraordinarily negative subsection (3), which more or less tells them that they should not itch to interfere in matters that they do not understand.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: When the Minister replies on Amendment No. 26, I would like her to confirm that Clause 5(2) would mean that, in considering recommendations, the Lord Chancellor could have regard only to the efficiency and effectiveness of the court system. That is how his duty is defined under Clause 1(1). If a recommendation were made that related primarily to the quality of justice, what would be the obligations on the Lord Chancellor?

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: It has just occurred to me that one of the areas that the Lord Chancellor will have to have in mind is the distribution of money for the purpose of supporting the various justice services in the councils' areas. The present Lord Chancellor may have some new way of doing it, but it has often been done by reference to a formula of reasonably general application. I could see an area council having some views on such a formula, which would be of general application throughout England and Wales. They might, for example, think that population was not sufficiently weighted in the formula or that sparsity of population was not taken into account sufficiently.
	Those are general considerations. Although their effect on a particular area is important, they are not specifically related only to one area. Such considerations would possibly be cut out by Clause 5(3). I see nothing to prevent the Lord Chancellor from ignoring any recommendation that does not relate specifically to the area for which a particular council has responsibility. Subsection (2), taken along with subsection (1), would give him that power. Therefore, I wonder whether subsection (3) might be unnecessary. It might prove a needless obstacle to proper consideration of, for example, a funding formula.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope to assuage some concerns raised by Members of the Committee. The Government believe that the interpretation that can be given to the way in which area councils will work will deal with many of the issues. I take on board the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. However, there is always an argument that any formula has an impact on the local area. As it impacts upon the local area, that council can make representations to say, "The effect upon us of the formula is as follows". That—

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does the Minister mean that the word "specifically" is superfluous? What is the meaning of "specifically" in the light of what she has just said?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It means specific to that area. The point is that issues will impact on local areas in a different way. Therefore, the local area is entitled to say, "The formula applies to us in the following way. The results of that are aberrant for the following reasons—namely, A, B and C". Those are issues which the Lord Chancellor would be obliged to take into account if recommendations were made concerning them.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: In the examples that the Minister has given, the councils may want to compare the effect of the formula on some other areas. Surely, they should be allowed to comment on the effect on another area if it relates to what is happening in their area.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand the point and shall respond as clearly as I can. The Bill, as drafted, deals with his difficulty. As Members of the Committee know, the areas will be specified by order—as referred to in Clause 4(2)—and can, if appropriate, be changed by an amending order.
	The interpretation that we give the current phrasing is this: the recommendation about the size or shape of their area would be included under the current clauses because they would relate to the administration of the courts in their area. To take the example given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, they would be entitled to say, "The courts within our area are adversely affected because of the following issues. Therefore, we believe we should be bigger, smaller, rounder, fatter", or whatever they would wish to say. We believe that that would fall within the category of issues which could properly be subject to recommendations and which the Lord Chancellor would have to consider.
	All Members of the Committee have said that they want the councils to concentrate on their local area and give advice to the Lord Chancellor about what should happen in it. Perhaps I may take the phraseology of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser. That would enable, for example, a council in the North West to make recommendations which may impinge on a council in the South West. Those views may be interesting but, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said—very cogently, if I may respectfully say so—they may conflict diametrically with the recommendations made by their own council. Doubtless, they might say that it was unreasonable for the Lord Chancellor to give inordinate weight to a council which was not seized of the particular nature and problems of that area. Therefore, we have tried to phrase the provision in a way that will enable a council to make recommendations about any issue that may impact on its area, but not to give recommendations which may impinge upon another council's area which, itself, will be making recommendations.
	Furthermore, in shaping guidance we must look at what guidance and training would need to be given to councils to include the need to work co-operatively—for example, competing or working with neighbouring areas. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, will know that very good support is given within the Court Service from one area to another, with members of the judiciary and others helping to cope with the ebbs and flows of work. The co-operation has been successful; that is something we believe will come out of a unified administration. We do not believe that that will be the difficulty that Members of the Committee indicated.
	We do not believe that we are being—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—insulting. That was not our intention in the way that matters have been phrased.
	I turn now, in sequence, to Amendment No. 26. The reason that the wording "due consideration" was chosen was because it was considered stronger than "due regard" or "in regard to". The Government are by no means wedded one to the other; we want the strongest term. We thought that the term we alighted upon was the stronger. If Members disagree, we shall listen to alternative views. However, there is not much of an issue between us. If we are persuaded that the wording suggested by noble Lords opposite is to be preferred, that will not be a difficulty. I invite noble Lords not to move the amendment. I have not heard very much argument to support "have regard to" as being stronger. If it is, I am more than happy to accept it. However, our view is that "due consideration" is stronger. I thought that Members of the Committee would prefer the stronger term. I shall come quietly.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I repeat what I said in speaking to my amendment. It was genuinely a probing amendment to obtain a flavour of the intent behind the Government's drafting. I am happy that the Minister has made it clear that the Government intend there to be a strong onus upon the Lord Chancellor. That is the kind of commitment we were seeking. I shall not move the amendment today.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am grateful. Furthermore, I am happy to attend a meeting as indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. If there are further issues that she and other noble Lords feel appropriate, I shall be happy to listen. Our intent is to make the wording firm, not weak.
	I turn now to Amendment No. 27 which appears to have excited a little anxiety, particularly on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I should like to explain in further detail the intention behind subsection (3). Its purpose is to focus the councils on local services. It would exclude from their remit those aspects of administrative work which might be managed functionally, on a national or regional basis. National services would include the proposed business centres dealing with "back office" administration, which are central to our plans to modernise the civil and family courts. These will perform much of the routine administrative work currently being performed at individual court buildings.
	The idea of dealing with administrative work at business centres or "back offices" which may support several hearing centres or provide services to the whole country is not new to the Court Service. The County Court Bulk Centre has recently celebrated its 10th anniversary and the Immigration Appellate Authorities are soon to open their second centre following the success of the Loughborough Support Centre.
	As part of its modernisation plans, the Court Service intends to establish a number of these centres with each one employing up to 500 people and supporting approximately 50 to 55 courts. They are therefore likely to cover the area of more than one court administration council. At this stage, locations have not been determined for these centres. Strong service level agreements will be established between each centre and the courts from which it receives work.
	We also intend to explore increased online services, building on the success of the Court Service's money claims online scheme, with which I know many Members of the Committee will be familiar. This might include, for example, an electronic service relating to housing claims. This could possibly include work currently conducted through the magistrates' courts, but would include only routine administrative work.
	Managing the business in this way will release time and resources to manage things that need a local basis, such as customer service and hearings. This is not about centralisation for the sake of it, but about the best way to organise court business to ensure that local managers, staff and court administration councils are free to focus on local delivery—one of the key elements of which is providing the best possible support to magistrates and judges.
	Clearly, councils will have an interest in the way that business centres function because the local courts in their area will be customers of those centres. However, we envisage that this relationship will be managed by a service-level agreement. It would certainly be open to a local council to make recommendations about that agreement. We want to avoid having national or regional services managed in the interests of one of the areas that they serve and not in the interests of all users.
	We want the court administration councils to focus very much on local services. We believe that subsection (3) provides this.

Lord Goodhart: Does that mean that if, for instance, a court administration council is dissatisfied with the nature of the IT services provided centrally, subsection (3) prevents it from commenting on a service that is provided nationally? Surely, if there is a local impact it should be able to comment. However, the Minister appears to indicate that it may be outside the powers of the council to comment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thought I had made it clear that anything which has a direct impact on the delivery of services in the local area becomes a competent issue upon which the councils can comment and make recommendations. I have also said that it can be important to try and get the various areas working co-operatively together. An issue relating to IT, mentioned by the noble Lord, will clearly be of importance because the central system must work compatibly with all the local IT systems to ensure that we achieve the value that we want from the system.
	I reiterate that the Court Service already has 10 years' experience of dealing with certain issues centrally. It knows the benefits of taking away some basic administrative tasks which releases local people to deliver a face-to-face service more effectively, not burdened by services that can be done more efficiently and effectively by others. That is all we are talking about.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I understood the Minister in her last explanation to say that the central service is taking away administrative services in order to operate them nationally and to set up centres in different places. However, I am not clear whether in that event local councils will have the right to make recommendations.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I said in answer—and I am happy to say it again—that councils will have an interest in the way the business centres function. The local courts in their area will be the customers of those centres. Therefore, we envisage that the relationship will be managed by a service-level agreement. We are trying to make a practical arrangement which will work well for councils and for local areas.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: There is a difference once the business centre is set up and there is a service-level agreement in which the council will have an interest. However, the Minister seemed to say in her opening response to the amendments that there would be no local right of recommendation on the strategic decision prior to the establishment of the local business centres. Perhaps it is necessary for us to read Hansard carefully and return to this important matter.

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Perhaps I may raise a point of construction, which is what I believe it to be. I have been sitting here minding my own business and listening to the various comments. The real problem, as I see it, is the meaning of the word "specifically". If one looks in tomorrow's Hansard at the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, one will see that he said "specifically only" in one passage. That is his interpretation of the word "specifically"; it means "specifically and only". The Minister's construction is different; meaning "as long as it applies to the local area".
	I am not saying which I believe to be right, but it seems silly that there should be problems over the construction of one word. It may well be that parliamentary counsel, assisted by lawyers from the department, could find some other word which makes it clear what is intended.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hear and am grateful for what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said in relation to that matter. Members of the Committee will see from the current drafting that the word "only" does not appear. The word "specifically" appears. Furthermore, I have tried to make clear the construction which we will place on that word and that the guidance to be issued will clarify the way in which the relationship should work.

Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I used the word "only" because the Bill states that,
	"on matters which do not relate specifically to the area",
	a council is not to make recommendations. Therefore, the only recommendations it can make are those which refer only to the area for which it has responsibility. That seems to be implicit in the present construction. It may well be that some happier construction can be found. At the moment, I find it difficult to see what subsection (3) adds to the combination of subsections (1) and (2)—but obviously I am learning.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Without being a bore, perhaps I may offer a middle way on this little matter of "give due consideration" and have "regard to". I thought I heard my noble friend say that we would not move the amendment, but we may have to return to the matter. The middle way, I propose, is merely to knock out the word "due" and say that the Lord Chancellor shall "give consideration". The trouble is that leaving in the word "due" does not rule out the possibility that a Lord Chancellor might say, "This is not worth any consideration at all". If one knocks out "due", all is perfectly happy.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: On this difficult little word "specifically", would it not be possible for the Minister to write to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, indicating how the clause would be different if "specifically" were left out and the provision simply read,
	"which do not relate to the area"?
	With that wording, we might achieve an outcome that we can all understand.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I had not anticipated that this small amendment would lead to such a fascinating debate. I am not mightily persuaded by what the Minister says. We offered her an opportunity to correct an erroneous impression of the Lord Chancellor's Department outside this Chamber. I believe that there is a concern that the Lord Chancellor's Department is becoming all-powerful and overweaning in its attitudes. That impression seems to be well established by the inclusion of subsection (3).
	The Lord Chancellor will have a general duty and a proper power all over the country—I have no objection to that because he has a real responsibility for the administration of justice—but every court administration council is to be kept in its box. It is not to do anything except make specific recommendations about its area.
	If an area council somewhere in the north-east of England wanted to make a recommendation about the south-west of England, I readily understand that the Lord Chancellor of the day might consider that little weight should be attached to that recommendation. However, it seems extraordinary that in no circumstances, as I understand subsection (3)—I hope that the Minister will not think me arrogant when I say that I have some fairly heavyweight legal opinion on my side in regard to the meaning and interpretation to be attached to subsection (3)—would an area council be entitled even to make a recommendation. It would not be for the Lord Chancellor to say, "That is a stupid observation and I shall not give any regard to it"; the area council would not be able even to make the observation.
	These councils will not consist of groups of magistrates with hay in their hair; they will have one member who is a judge.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hesitate to interrupt. Perhaps I am not speaking with the clarity to which I believe I have become used, but I said that the example given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, would be included within the definition. It is our understanding that a local council could make recommendations and the Lord Chancellor would be obliged to give either due regard or due consideration to them.
	While I am on my feet, I should say that removing the word "due", as suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, would make the Bill weaker. We want to make the Bill stronger. But these are all drafting issues that we can continue to discuss.

Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The example I gave seemed to me to be the simplest one in the circumstance where a council thought that its area might be extended. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, with his long experience in office, has brought forward an unanswerable point.
	Let me give the example of an area council on either side of the M6 going into England. It was my common experience as Lord Advocate in Scotland that often the police at Folkestone or Dover would pick up someone who was dealing in drugs and follow them, not unreasonably, to discover where the drugs were to be delivered. Sometimes a load of drugs would go all the way up the M6 but, when it got to the North West, the police would suddenly develop a consideration and concern that it was about to pass into another jurisdiction and that they had better move to close the dealers down and bring them before the courts, even though they would not find out—as they clearly wanted to—the ultimate destination of the drugs.
	It seems to me that it would not be unreasonable for members of a Cumbrian council to say, "We do not take exception to the practice that has been followed through in Dover, but its consequence has been to impose an additional burden on us". That would be a perfectly reasonable approach to take. But it would not make much sense if they said only, "We have got this number of drug dealers being brought before the courts on a Monday morning" without referring back to the broader practice being followed throughout the country.
	I cannot see why the amendment is so objectionable . I have no particular pride of authorship in seeking to insert "with particular reference to", but it seems to me that subsection (3) is truly objectionable—or "offensive", as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said—and I urge the Minister to consider deleting it completely. If those who are advising the Minister and drafting the Bill have another way of approaching this issue, I am perfectly content for them to do so.
	I again emphasise that I am not seeking to deprive the Lord Chancellor of his general duty in relation to England and Wales. Indeed, I applaud the imposition of that duty and wish to see it maintained. I certainly do not wish to see the court administration councils dictating to the Lord Chancellor what he should do. All we are trying to do is to take this council out of its box and allow it to speak more broadly than simply with reference to the area for which it is established.
	These bodies will not consist of a set of magistrates who may have little or no knowledge of anything beyond their area; they will be councils, some of whose members will be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and one of whom will be a judge. In such circumstances it would be entirely appropriate and proper for councils to be given the opportunity to make recommendations which go beyond purely local matters.
	I shall not press the amendment to a Division at this stage, although I am sorely tempted to do so. I hope that the Minister appreciates that I am not satisfied with her answer and that I reserve the right to return to this issue at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 25 to 28 not moved.]
	Clause 5 agreed to.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 29:
	After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
	"JUDICIAL CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES
	(1) A judicial consultative committee shall be established for each area for which there is a court administration council.
	(2) The members of the committee shall be drawn from the judiciary for the area.
	(3) The judicial consultative committee shall be consulted on any arrangements proposed by the local chief officer relating to the judiciary and judicial functions, including—
	(a) listing of cases;
	(b) use of courthouses;
	(c) appointment of magistrates and judges;
	(d) deployment of magistrates and judges;
	(e) appointment and removal of senior court officers; and
	(f) other matters which may be defined in rules.
	(4) Where no agreement can be reached between the judicial consultative committee and the local chief officer, there shall be a right of appeal to the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Chancellor's decision shall be final.
	(5) Rules may make provision for the purposes of this section."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The amendment is a response to the views expressed recently in a joint statement issued by the Magistrates Association and the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees. We believe that it is a constructive proposal for the way forward whether or not the Government's present proposals for CACs remain the same or are modified.
	The amendment proposes that statutory judicial consultative committees should be established which would stand apart from CACs and management boards—whatever they are to be called—with their specific focus and responsibilities. The proposed new clause will ensure that there are clear and unambiguous procedures for consultation on matters such as judicial deployment, allocation of workload, appointment and removal of justices' clerks and the use of court buildings.
	The CACs, management boards and consultative committees would work closely together and, in the event that agreement could not be reached at local level, there would be an ultimate and transparent appeal process to the Lord Chancellor. Judicial consultative committees would help to ensure the independence of the judiciary and its legal advisers. They would ensure that the executive did not interfere with the judicial decision-making process. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: I support my noble friend's amendment. Like other Members of the Committee who have had some judicial responsibilities, I always felt that, although the administrative people did their best, because they were not lawyers they did not always know what were the priorities. That problem is easily dealt with by the amendment in a way which would not cause any controversy. It would ensure that, however zealous a local chief officer may be, he would have to bear in mind judicial opinion.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord's final comment; the judiciary should properly make such decisions.
	The noble Baroness's amendment seeks to establish a judicial consultative committee for each area for which there is to be a court administration council, with a requirement that the local chief officer should consult the committee about any arrangements he may propose relating to the judiciary. It perhaps puts the burden the wrong way round: under this proposal, the committees would exist in addition to the court administration councils.
	I am not sure whether the noble Baroness's intention is to exclude the lay magistracy from membership of such committees, but that would be the effect of the amendment. In terms of judicial decision-making, the amendment misunderstands the relative roles and responsibilities of the administration and the judiciary. The appointment of magistrates and judges, as all noble Lords will know, is the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor. It is not a judicial function and not the responsibility of those who manage the courts. Similarly, I agree with those who say that listing and the deployment of magistrates and judges are the responsibility of the judiciary, supported by staff working in the courts.
	As I have said, we propose arrangements to consult local Benches about the assignment of their justices' clerks, but it would not be appropriate to consult a committee of judges, rather than the individual Benches concerned, about these issues.
	On the use of courthouses, clearly this is an issue on which judges and magistrates should have a say. But it is equally an issue in which local councils will be involved. We are at risk of creating a system in which there are conflicting duties—to the council and to the judicial committee—which, with this statutory formulation, could be very difficult to manage.
	There is no demand from the professional judiciary for this sort of mechanism, and I am as certain as I can be that the judiciary would not support it in its current form. The relationship between the Court Service and the judiciary works well, without the need for judicial consultative committees. The Court Service's framework document sets out clear directions to the chief executive and the staff to foster good relations with all members of the judiciary and to work closely with the judiciary to ensure that all parties are enabled to carry out their responsibilities in the management of the courts and the administration of justice. Although non-statutory, these arrangements are, as I have said, working well.
	The partnership between the judiciary, lay and professional, will be crucial to the success of the new agency. We believe that their contribution to the administration of justice will be enhanced by their presence on court administration councils.
	The existence of court administration councils will be in addition to, not instead of, good working relationships at court level. Benches and Bench chairmen must all feel that they have productive relationships with their clerks and administrators, just as resident judges must be able to work well with court staff.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am intrigued by the Minister's comment that there has been no demand for the new mechanism. I wonder if those who have spoken in support would be able to convince me—they certainly have not convinced the Minister—that there is a need for this extra layer of bureaucracy. A conflict, or a likely conflict, ought to be resisted like the plague. Even if there is a nominal case to be made—and I have yet to hear it—I should be grateful if those who support having such a mechanism could convince me that there is a need for it. We are learning all the time from this and other Bills to be aware of creating procedures and mechanisms which sound all right but merely duplicate or replicate existing procedures.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have heard of no such request. I, too, should be grateful to know whether noble Lords have had contrary indications.
	We believe that the appropriate guarantees will be made, as they are for the Court Service now, in the agency's framework document, following discussions with magistrates and judges about how they want consultative arrangements to work. We would not seek to change that happy relationship unless we could put something better in its place. With the greatest respect, we do not think that this suggestion would do that.

Lord Renton: The noble Baroness referred to the Lord Chancellor having a responsibility to do some of the things which are envisaged in the amendment. All Lord Chancellors are splendid people who have a good staff to support them, but the Lord Chancellor is remote from the areas of England and Wales to which the amendment must relate. The Bill provides for a local chief officer. Surely we must make sure that the local chief officer does what the local judiciary considers to be right. That is what the amendment intends, which is why I hope that the Minister will save the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor's Department from having to take decisions all over the country when they could far better be taken with the help of the judiciary locally.

Lord Clinton-Davis: Before my noble friend answers that point, surely the point which is cogently made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is dealt with in Clause 5. Am I not right about that?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I think my noble friend is right. However, I should remind the Committee of the current position. At present, the deployment of judges is a matter for the presiding judge, the resident judges and others in discussion with those judges involved and with the support of the administration. That is not a function suitable for a committee. The way in which the judges currently arrange deployment is entirely satisfactory not only to them but to the system. We would not seek to change that methodology in relation to deployment because it works well.
	The Lord Chancellor is not the remote figure that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, suggests. The Bill makes no other references to a local chief officer. I am afraid that that is another flaw in the amendment.
	There have been queries as to whether there is a demand for a consultative committee. The committee would include only the professional judiciary, and we believe that there is no demand from the judiciary for this sort of mechanism. I believe that the judiciary is content with the way in which it arranges its business together with the court administrators, and does not seek any change.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Following on from that answer from the Minister, at present the presiding judge of a circuit or the senior civil or criminal judge in a particular court area has the last word on such matters as listing cases, use of courthouses, and so on. Could the Minister define the relationship that is envisaged in the new set-up? Do we take it that the judges will continue to exercise control over the matters referred to in the amendment, including listing of cases, use of courthouses and deployment of judges and magistrates? Will the judges have the last word or will the local chief officer be controlling them?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We do not envisage a change in the relationship. I have tried to say that the issues mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, are judicial, not administrative. We think that there has been confusion between the proper role of the administrative arm and the proper role of the judicial arm. We say that listing is a judicial function. The new system should be no different from the old system in relation to the arrangements on deployment that are in place between the Court Service and the judiciary.
	The whole point of this unification is to take that which works well from the Court Service and that which works well from the magistrates' courts committees and to harness and garner the advantages from the system and make them universally applicable. We have no intention of weakening those instruments and tools that we have deployed with great effect in the past and which have served us well.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I thank the Minister for her answer. This has been a useful debate and something to which I will need to return, in a slightly different form, on Report.
	I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for referring to the intention behind the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, thought that the intention may have been satisfied by Clause 5. I agreed to table the amendment because I do not think that it is, and we need to go deeper than that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was right to ask about the Government's intent for the future. It is important that we begin to get a picture of that. I go to the root of the issue. There has been a debate about the membership of the committees. I accept that my drafting may not be as good as it could be and I shall look at it again. However, as I understand it, the word "judiciary" normally encompasses within it the magistracy. Indeed the Bill refers to judges as justices. Therefore, I suggest that the judiciary encompasses lay magistrates. However, I appreciate that my amendment did not make that clear and therefore I did not raise it as a matter for debate as it would have been improper so to do. I shall ensure that I do not make that mistake again.
	I was intrigued by the important intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. He asked whether the measure we are discussing was needed and said in effect that if there was no great clamour for it we should not introduce it. I put the converse argument; namely, where there is a clamour, listen to it and act. I look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, supporting Members on this side of the Chamber when we table certain amendments on Report, we hope with the agreement of the Minister. I refer to the great clamour of disagreement outside the Chamber on the Government's proposals on CACs. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 6 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
	Schedule 1 [Abolition of magistrates' courts committees: transfers]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 31:
	Page 54, line 23, at end insert—
	"(2A) Before making any property transfer scheme, the Lord Chancellor shall consult any of the persons mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) who are affected by the scheme."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In moving Amendment No. 31 which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Kingsland, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 33, which also stands in his name. I wish to refer also to Amendment No. 32 which stands in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, and the noble Lords, Lord Lea of Crondall and Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. Amendment No. 32 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 31 and 33, as is Amendment No. 34 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Thomas of Gresford.
	Schedule 1 gives the Lord Chancellor sweeping powers to make provision for the transfer of both the property and the staff of magistrates' courts committees and other bodies. In the case of property, the transfer may be to the noble and learned Lord or to another Minister of the Crown, and in the case of staff, the transfer will be into the employment of the noble and learned Lord. So far, so clear.
	Amendment No. 31 would insert into paragraph 1 of the schedule a requirement to consult with the bodies specified in subparagraph (2) where they were affected by a property transfer scheme. The purpose of the amendment is to probe the nature and extent of the property that will be transferred under the provisions of the schedule from bodies other than magistrates' courts committees. It is self-evident that if magistrates' courts committees are to be abolished, as the Government propose, then their property will have to be transferred elsewhere, but subparagraphs (1) and (2) of paragraph 1 grant power to the Lord Chancellor to transfer property, rights or liabilities from other bodies including county and district councils, London borough councils, police authorities, local probation boards and,
	"any other body which acts under any enactment or instrument for public purposes and not for its own profit".
	I assume that this last catch-all definition was included just in case any relevant bodies had been inadvertently missed off the list. But if that is the case, one would hope that by now the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would have some idea which bodies had been omitted to enable them to be notified about the transfer of property.
	I recognise that in order to be transferred under a property transfer scheme, the property, right or liability in question will have to,
	"subsist for the purposes of, or in connection with, magistrates' courts".
	I should therefore be grateful for clarification from the Government as to the kinds of property, rights and liabilities that will be transferred away from police authorities, probation boards, local councils and the other bodies specified in subparagraph (2) of paragraph 1.
	We talked about consultation earlier. Will the Government also say whether there has been any consultation with these bodies to date about the provisions of Schedule 1 and, if so, what the outcome of the consultation has been? Do they, as the amendment proposes, intend to conduct a consultation exercise before property is transferred?
	I note that the Explanatory Notes state at paragraph 21:
	"Land will in fact be transferred to the Deputy Prime Minister, who will make arrangements with the Lord Chancellor".
	Members of the Committee will recall that at Second Reading the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:
	"This is not a take-over of the magistrates' courts by the Court Service, nor is it a centralising measure".—[Official Report, 9/12/02; col. 15.]
	However, it appears from the provisions of Schedule 1 and what is stated in the Explanatory Notes that if the Bill is enacted, property at present owned by magistrates' courts committees, local authorities, police authorities and local probation boards will be transferred to the Deputy Prime Minister. That raises many questions. Why Mr Prescott? What has he done to deserve all this? What will be the terms of the arrangements to be made between the Deputy Prime Minister and the noble and learned Lord referred to in the Explanatory Notes? I hope that the Government will be able to make these matters a little clearer than they are at present.
	Amendment No. 33 would insert a similar requirement for prior consultation in respect of schemes for the transfer of the staff of magistrates' courts committees into employment by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Such a scheme may also apply to local authority staff whose work is connected with the magistrates' courts. Will the Government clarify exactly how many staff will be transferred under these schemes, particularly staff who are currently employed by local authorities? Have they been consulted on the proposals in the Bill—I hope that the Minister will answer in the affirmative—given that the basis of their employment will be affected?
	Will the Government amplify what is in the Bill and the Explanatory Notes in respect of pension provision? I shall not discuss that matter in detail as I expect that the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, will do so more fully. I beg to move.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 32, which is grouped with the amendments we are discussing. Amendment No. 32 relates specifically to the staff transfer schemes in Schedule 1. The amendment is designed to ensure that in any question of transfers of employees, all employees are included and their rights upheld. In that it is similar to previous amendments that I have moved during the passage of the Bill.
	Obviously, staff transfer schemes are very important to people working within organisations, as I am sure my noble friend will understand. The welcome streamlining of the courts affected by the Bill means that those employed currently by magistrates' courts will be merged with other employees currently working within the Lord Chancellor's Department. However, the language in paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 is of concern to some. It does not seem to me or to the unions involved to ensure that the employment rights of all employees will be covered by the transfer scheme. Nor does it appear to protect the terms of the current collective agreements. In particular—I refer to a matter we discussed earlier during the Bill's passage—the use of the word "may" in paragraph 9(1) in relation to the Lord Chancellor making "a scheme" is not sufficiently strong. It leaves open the possibility that he may not make such a scheme.
	In paragraph 9(5) the word "may" again appears. That is worrying wording as it leaves open the possibility that the scheme may not cover eligible employees.
	Although paragraph 9(6) contains provision for the Lord Chancellor to give directions about consultation in relation to each eligible employee to be transferred, it does not require him to do so. It does not specify the consultation requirements and it does not apply to all affected employees—only to those who actually transfer.
	The trade unions representing the current employees strongly believe that the other subparagraphs in paragraph 9 considerably weaken the existing collective agreements and recognition agreements. In particular, paragraph 9(8) refers to a person who is not transferring because he objects to being transferred by the scheme. The paragraph provides under those circumstances for dismissal immediately before the appointed day on which the staff transfer comes into force. There is a question mark as to whether such a dismissal could be regarded as being automatically unfair, subject to any economic, technical or organisational reasons applying.
	I recognise that the proposed amendment considerably shortens paragraph 9, but it ensures that all staff are accorded full TUPE protection and that there is no mismatch between TUPE regulations and the Bill. I welcome comments from my noble friend about these issues, as there are genuine concerns on the part of employees involved.

Lord Goodhart: I shall speak to Amendment No. 34, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. We also strongly support Amendment No. 32.
	Amendment No. 34 has the effect of removing paragraph 10 of Schedule 1. That paragraph enables orders to be made that have the effect of modifying the pension rights of employees transferred from the magistrates' courts to the new agency. In the course of the modification, there is no guarantee that their pension rights will be maintained at the existing level. Paragraph 26 of the Explanatory Notes says:
	"Paragraph 10(1) provides that transfer scheme may exclude pension provisions. All staff transferring to the new agency will have the opportunity to join the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCPPS), but this may not happen at the time the transfer takes place. This is because incorporating staff from 42 MCCs and the Court Service into a single organisation will require a significant exercise in rationalisation of terms and conditions".
	This is a probing amendment to discover what is intended to be done to rationalise terms and conditions, how long that process will take, and whether existing pension rights will be maintained during the interim period for those who are being transferred. If not, what will the position be? We also want to ascertain whether existing pension rights will be maintained and that those who are transferred into the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme will be no worse off as a result.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is an important group of amendments. We fully understand the sensitivities that are wrapped up in the important questions that the amendments address. I shall take some time and care in going over those issues and exploring as thoroughly as possible each of the amendments in turn.
	The effect of Amendments Nos. 31 and 33 would be to require the Lord Chancellor to consult those from whom property would be transferred and to consult eligible employees affected by a staff transfer scheme. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, explained why she proposed her amendment and asked several questions. We certainly intend that consultation should take place, but I question whether the amendment is necessary to effect it.
	On staff transfers, it would be inappropriate to place the Lord Chancellor under a duty to consult staff who are not his employees. The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, which we intend to follow rigorously, places a duty to consult on the current employer of employees who may be affected by the transfer. Consultation would therefore be a matter for the current employer—either magistrates' courts committees or local authorities.
	Paragraph 9(6) enables the Lord Chancellor to give directions to employers about consultation. The directions must be complied with for each eligible employee to be transferred under the scheme, otherwise the scheme cannot be made. In respect of those staff who are not transferred, there would still be a requirement for consultation in accordance with the redundancy procedure under general employment law. The consultation requirement is already there. Furthermore, consultation needs to start now rather than on the coming into force of the Bill. Consultation with the union representing magistrates' courts committee staff is already under way. Consultation with those holding property on behalf of magistrates' courts committees, principally local authorities, will commence shortly.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked what property would be transferred. There are several categories of real and personal property that will be transferred: property currently used for magistrates' courts purposes; property recently acquired for magistrates' courts purposes but yet to be put to that use; vacant or mothballed property or vacant space intended to be used to accommodate the magistrates' courts service in future; property in a PFI scheme, either completed or under construction or negotiation; and property that the transferor has contracted to acquire in relation to magistrates' courts but which has not yet been transferred.
	The noble Baroness also asked why land-holding powers rested with John Prescott. That is a reasonable question. John Prescott has a very large job and portfolio. The simple answer is that such a provision avoids a proliferation of land-holding powers, so they are not sprinkled and distributed widely. Crown land is held, as a matter of practice, by a single Minister. The current power rests with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
	The noble Baroness also asked about the coverage of staff transfers. We will find out exactly how many local authority staff are eligible for transfer. The schedule is designed to cover any whose transfer seems suitable and sensible. There are roughly 10,000 staff working for magistrates' courts committees, but the number who will be directly reliant for their employment within the local authority sector on magistrates' courts committees may be somewhat lower. It is possible that some of those staff are involved in other activities in the local authority. That is why we must undertake an investigation to get it absolutely right.
	From my experience of local government—I was responsible as leader for merging one third of a county and two district councils together—I know that finding out how some employees spend their time is not as easy as it may at first look. Anyone who has been involved in a merger will be well aware of the possible difficulties. This exercise is designed to secure that information .
	Amendment No. 32, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, proposes that the existing paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 be replaced with a new paragraph. The effect would be to place the Lord Chancellor under a duty to make a staff transfer scheme to transfer eligible employees to the employment of the Lord Chancellor to work for the new agency. The Lord Chancellor's power is currently expressed as discretionary to enable him to have flexibility with regard to who is transferred. There would be no point in transferring anyone for whom there was clearly no suitable job in the new structure. That picks up a point that I made earlier about employees currently within the local authority orbit who will be doing some work for magistrates' courts committees and other work elsewhere within the local authority. We have to try to get that part of it right. Full compensation for redundancy should be available to those employees in their existing post if that is thought to be in the best interests of the service. The normal principles of employment law will require selection for transfer in these circumstances to be conducted fairly.
	The effect of new paragraph 9(2) would be to change the definition of the term "eligible employee". Paragraph 9(4) currently defines an eligible employee as,
	"a person who is . . . under a contract of employment . . . by a magistrates' courts committee, or . . . an authority which is a responsible authority for the purposes of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 . . . in connection with their functions under that Act".
	Those functions are set out in Section 55 of that Act. The proposed new paragraph 9(2) would change the definition of a local authority eligible employee to a person who is employed,
	"under a contract of employment . . . by a local authority in that part of the local authority's undertaking which carries out the local authority's functions under section 55 of the Justices of the Peace Act".
	I seriously question whether this amendment is necessary or desirable. Section 55 uses the term "responsible authority" rather than "local authority". Changing the reference from responsible authority to local authority would not therefore work in terms of drafting. It would also have the effect of excluding any staff employed by other authorities working on duties in connection with Section 55. Until a detailed staff survey of the magistrates' courts committees has been undertaken we cannot rule out the possibility that such staff exist.
	New paragraph 9(3) makes specific reference to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, to which I referred. In developing our provisions for the transfer of staff, we have followed the drafting model of the Courts and Legal Services Act, which does not include specific reference to TUPE. However, we are committed to following the principles of the TUPE regulations, as we are required to do under the Cabinet Office Statement of Practice. We believe that the Bill effectively replicates the majority of the TUPE regulation provisions and that the Bill as drafted gives protection fully equivalent to those principles.
	We are aware of the concerns that the trades unions have raised about our wording here. While I do not believe there is anything between us on the substance of what we want to achieve, I also recognise that it is very important that staff faced with substantial change should have full assurances that their position will be protected. Accordingly, where following further discussions with the unions it seems right to redraft and clarify paragraph 9 of Schedule 1, to give further assurance to magistrates' courts and local authority staff that their rights on transfer will be fully protected as if the TUPE regulations applied, we will bring forward the amendments necessary to do so. I hope that that assurance satisfies that interest and that the amendment will not be pressed.
	I turn to Amendment No. 34. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, outlined, the amendment proposes that paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 be removed. Paragraph 10(1) provides that employees transferring into the new agency will not be subject to paragraph 9(7) with regard to pensions. That is consistent with the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and with EU legislation (Directive 2001/23).
	Eligible staff who transfer to the new agency will become civil servants and will be eligible for membership of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme or the partnership pension scheme. Paragraph 10 puts into place the necessary arrangements for staff to transfer from their current pension schemes to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme or to the partnership pension scheme. It also allows staff to remain in their present pension scheme after the date of the staff transfer to the new agency. That will be necessary if negotiations with the relevant unions and existing pension providers about staff membership of the PCSPS or the partnership pension scheme—including matters as detailed as actuarial calculations—have not been completed before the date of transfer.
	I can give an assurance that we will endeavour to transfer all staff into the PCSPS or the partnership pension scheme on the date of transfer into the new agency. Obviously, that will be subject to the necessary negotiations with the relevant unions and the existing pensions providers being completed by that date.
	The effect of Amendment No. 34 would be to require pension provision—where it is part of the terms and conditions of employment—to be carried over to the new employer. That would in practice be impossible for us to achieve as it is envisaged that transferred staff, as civil servants, would transfer to the PCSPS or partnership pension. It is for those reasons that I hope that noble Lords will not press the amendment.
	I am conscious that I may not have fully responded to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on 28th January, at col. 1045 of the Official Report. I want to put that right, and to do so on the record, as I have been asked to do. I am aware that in respect of the transfer of a number of their employees from their present superannuation schemes to the PCSPS, the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority faces deficiencies in the relevant pension funds which could be as high as £7 million to £8 million. Scaled up in proportion to the number of employees who could be expected to transfer, that would correspond to a figure not far below £100 million, as the noble Lord observed, although the actual amount would depend on the state of the individual funds concerned. Pending a detailed actuarial evaluation, which is being put in hand, such calculations are entirely speculative.
	However, whatever the amount, it is not actually a cost of transfer. The costs of maintaining the present magistrates' courts system include continuing actuarially evaluated payments to meet deficiencies in the local authority pension funds upon which employees of magistrates' courts committees, and those local government employees whose work relates to MCCs, depend for their pension entitlement. Transferring employees may rephase these payments. It will not of itself increase them. These payments are not a result of transfer and in our view should not be regarded as a cost of transfer.
	I make this point at some length especially because later, at cols. 1050 and 1053 of the Official Report, the noble Lord seemed to be suggesting a scenario in which, to avoid those costs, the Government avoided transferring many eligible employees to the new executive agency. Not only is that a total misconception—the Government fully expect that the new agency will make the best use of at least the great majority of eligible employees—but it would not even avoid the costs which are effectively a commitment arising out of the present employment of those staff. So we could not do it even if we wanted to. Indeed, the scenario which the noble Lord imagined would result in massive cost increases on account of the high but justifiable redundancy payments that would result.
	That in itself should reassure the noble Lord. More importantly—and with respect to him—it should reassure MCC employees and others who depend on MCCs for their employment that they will at all times be treated in an entirely fair and constructive manner which recognises the continuing and enhanced demand for their skills in the new structure that we propose.
	I think that I have answered all the points with perhaps one exception—on the pension rights of those who transfer, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The terms of the transfer to the PCSPS will be negotiated. We aim to ensure that the transfer terms secure for those who transfer a position that is no less favourable than the current provision. We cannot be fairer than that. We will have secured something very important for those employees by having achieved that.
	I apologise for having dealt with the matter at length, but the questions were detailed and important. We want to record our appreciation for the co-operation that we have had from staff so far in the detailed negotiations, and put on record our continuing commitment to those staff for the future and for the new service.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I express my gratitude to the Minister for taking seriously the points that I made on two previous occasions, and for giving such a full explanation. I shall study it with care and take advice on it. I am very grateful to him.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am also grateful to the Minister. He was right to pay care and attention to such matters in his answers, as they are complex and affect a huge number of people. The assurances that he gave were important to have on record.
	I was grateful that the Minister took care to come back to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Although on previous occasions I have understood the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, I admit that I am not sure that I have understood the Minister's answer. I certainly need to have a jolly good look at that.
	I was grateful to the Minister for his statement on the consultation, for the Government's commitment to that and for the fact that it has already started. We will have to look in more detail at the nature of that consultation, but I felt that he went as far as he could today to satisfy me on those matters.
	It was also interesting to hear the list of property given. From what the Minister said, it seems as though one should judge the importance of a Minister by the size of his portfolio. By the sound of it, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is trying to give Mr John Prescott a helping hand up the ministerial ladder. How much further has he got to go? Not far, perhaps.
	The Minister talks about 10,000 staff perhaps being transferred from the local authorities. I understand his proper remarks about not all of those being wholly employed on related issues. However, from the list of the properties and the numbers of people, we get a picture of the size of the undertaking, which is huge, and of the measure of transfer from local to central, despite the fact that the Government say that the provision is not centralisation.
	The physical aspects of the matter are intriguing, and we will return to them in other ways. However, it was most helpful for the Minister to put such matters on record. It will be up to other noble Lords, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, to see whether his remarks fully meet the questions that they put. I feel that the Minister's response was productive, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 32:
	Page 56, line 14, leave out paragraph 9 and insert—
	"9 (1) The Lord Chancellor shall make a scheme (a "staff transfer scheme") for the transfer, immediately before Magistrates' Courts Committees are abolished by section 6, of all eligible employees into employment by the Lord Chancellor.
	(2) "Eligible employee" means a person who is employed under a contract of employment—
	(a) by a Magistrates' Courts Committee, or
	(b) by a local authority in that part of the local authority's undertaking which carries out the local authority's functions under section 55 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 (c. 25) (duties of local authorities).
	(3) All eligible employees shall be treated in the same way as an employee in circumstances where the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (S.I. 1981/1794) apply and, for the purposes of this Schedule, the employing Magistrates' Courts Committee or local authority shall be treated as transferor and the Lord Chancellor shall be treated as the transferee."

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I thank my noble friend for his response to Amendment No. 32, with which we are very pleased. Therefore, I do not intend to move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
	[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]
	Schedule 1 agreed to.
	Clause 7 agreed to.
	Clause 8 [Local justice areas]:

Baroness Seccombe: moved Amendment No. 35:
	Page 4, line 11, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (2A),"

Baroness Seccombe: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 36. The amendments would insert a new subsection. We have heard much about the new justice areas, which the Lord Chancellor will make by order and has the power to amend by order. We seek an answer to the questions of how many local justice areas there should be and how their boundaries should be determined.
	My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith debated the principles underlying the amendments on Amendment No. 17, which covered the number and boundaries of CACs. One would anticipate that the boundaries of CACs and local justice areas would be coterminous in themselves, but that is not clear in the Bill. It is therefore important that we debate the amendments.
	Amendment No. 35 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 36. It provides that the areas into which the country is to be divided by the Lord Chancellor to become local justice areas shall be determined in accordance with our new subsection (2A). Amendment No. 36 inserts that new subsection. It is the crucial amendment, specifying that the local justice areas should be coterminous with the police and CPS areas. I cannot understand why the Lord Chancellor would wish to set the boundaries in any other way. What other factors that he would wish to take into account are so important that they would cause him to set the boundaries so that they were not coterminous with the police areas?
	It would seem hard to deliver local justice if the local justice areas were fewer in number. Therefore, we believe that ensuring that their boundaries are coterminous with areas established for the police and CPS would not only make sure that there were enough areas to make them local, but harmonise the whole criminal justice system—something that the Lord Chancellor purportedly seeks to do with the Bill.
	We are flexible, however. We ensure that the boundaries of the local justice areas can change if those of the police change in future. They would thereby remain coterminous. Our drafting is not draconian. It does not say that the Lord Chancellor must set the local justice areas so that they are coterminous with the police areas, only that he must have regard to the desirability of making them coterminous. If he decides to set the boundaries differently, he could be held to account and asked to give his reasons.
	The Minister will have read the briefing from the Magistrates' Association, the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees and the Association of Justices' Chief Executives, which all support the objective of the amendments. As the Bar Council so rightly said, the areas under Clause 8(2) should be defined now, as Clause 8(4) allows the Lord Chancellor carte blanche to do what he pleases at a later stage. In theory, we could end up with only one "local" justice area serving the whole country. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: I hope that the Government welcome the amendment, because it would prevent administrative confusion by making the police and crown prosecution areas coterminous with what is proposed in the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will feel it worth considering seriously.

Lord Jones: Following the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, the proposal to create a local justice area in place of commission areas and petty sessions might lead to substantial erosion, or even destruction, of the local infrastructures that are the core and strength of the system of justice in the localities. The magistrates and those who support them believe that local justice areas must remain local, and I am sure that the House would not want to have only one local area, which is possible in theory.
	Current and past court closures and amalgamations are already putting a strain on the magistrates' courts system and, arguably, undermining local justice. With those basic thoughts in mind, I shall resume my seat. But I hope that Her Majesty's Government will listen to the succinct case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe.

Viscount Tenby: I cannot conceive that the Government would have any objection to Amendment No. 36, which seeks to make local justice areas coterminous with police and Crown Prosecution Service areas, in particular. Surely that is what it is all about. It is all about joined-up government, unification and getting things on the road and about trying to get rid of all the disparity which has existed up until now and with which we have limped along. Therefore, I join my puny voice in support of the amendments and shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.

Lord Waddington: I want to point out that the terminology in the Bill is somewhat confusing. We are told that England and Wales are to be divided up into areas, for each of which there is to be a court administration council. The document of 4th December tells us that these are local areas and that each local area is to be managed by an agency chief officer. Yet, in Clause 8 we have local justice areas, which are not the same thing at all. It is merely a new name for petty sessions areas.
	The Government seem to use the word "local" in connection with court administration councils simply because they feel that that has the right ring to it. However, it does not appear that they will be local at all. They certainly will not be local in the sense that these bodies will be local. Therefore, I wonder whether the Government have been wise in their choice of a new title for the petty sessions areas.
	However, when we come to the substance of the amendment, I need say only that I agree entirely with what has already been said. My understanding is that the local justice areas will initially cover the same areas as the petty sessions areas. It will be very wrong if they become much bigger and cease to be local.

Lord Dixon-Smith: The principle enunciated in the amendments is impeccable, but I must admit that I am now slightly confused as to which area we are talking about. I had thought that, taking into account the original purpose of the court administration councils and the areas which they were to serve, they would be matched far more appropriately to the police authority areas and that the local justice areas would be rather smaller. In fact, a court administration council would cover a number of local justice areas. I may have gained the wrong impression.
	The current organisation of the magistracy includes a local Bench area and a county area, which is a police authority area, and those provide a kind of federal arrangement. It is an arrangement which has worked very well in the past. I envisaged that that was the type of arrangement that the Government had in mind. I may have been wrong.
	However, if a local justice area is the same as a court administration area, then, in my view, one or the other is unnecessary. It would imply that the court administration council areas were much bigger. I believe that that would be unfortunate. I am sure that, when the Minister comes to reply, he will at least satisfy me as to the exact distinction between the two types of area, both of which at present are causing a certain amount of confusion in my mind.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall try to bring some clarity where there appears to be confusion, but I do not promise that I shall get it absolutely right. A substantive amendment has been proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe. The effect of the amendment would be to make it clear that, when specifying local justice area boundaries, the Lord Chancellor will have regard to the desirability of ensuring that those areas are coterminous with the 42 criminal justice areas. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important issue.
	At present, magistrates are appointed to a particular commission area on the basis of where they reside. Most summary offences must be tried in the commission area where the alleged offence took place. That is the basis on which magistrates are appointed. At present, commission areas are divided into one or more petty sessions areas—areas to which magistrates are assigned by the Lord Chancellor. As a consequence of the provisions in the Bill, we are abolishing commission areas from statute and—the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, was right—replacing petty sessions areas with local justice areas. We shall introduce a transitional provision confirming that local justice area boundaries will be the same as those of petty sessions areas on commencement. The amendment seems to assume, incorrectly, that local justice areas are replacing commission areas.
	If, as the amendment suggests, all local justice areas were to be truly coterminous with the criminal justice areas, there would be only 42 local justice areas in England and Wales. That would mean that, instead of 275, there would be only 42 Benches in England and Wales. We suggest that Benches of that size would be impractical and could erode the important close local links that currently exist between magistrates and their local communities. In earlier debates, many Members of the Committee argued vociferously for those links. It is clear that such an amendment would have a detrimental effect on the Government's commitment to local justice.
	It may be the intention of the amendment that the boundaries of each local justice area should fall entirely within one of the 42 criminal justice system areas so that no local justice area would straddle more than one criminal justice system area. That is the current position with regard to petty sessions area boundaries and, initially, will also be the case in relation to local justice area boundaries. We expect that, in future, local justice area boundaries will remain within those of the criminal justice system areas. However—this is the important qualification—we would not want to commit to ensuring that on the face of the Bill, although I can understand why many Members of the Committee might want to oblige us to do so.
	I caution the Committee that it is important to remember, for example, that magistrates' courts also hear civil and family cases and not simply criminal ones. Therefore, the organisation of local justice areas is not solely reliant on the needs of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.
	We understand the spirit and thinking behind the amendment but believe that it is unnecessary. We may require some flexibility. I take the noble Baroness's point that some flexibility was built into the amendment, but we consider it to be unnecessary. However, clearly we see coterminosity as desirable for local justice areas.

Baroness Seccombe: I thank the Minister for that rather complicated response. I am sure he will accept that I shall need to read it carefully to ensure that I have understood it completely. I am grateful to Members of the Committee who—like me, I believe—have found it difficult to understand what is meant by "local". As a magistrate, I feel that being local is very important. We ask people to sit on Benches and to operate within a certain local area—by that, one means within a comparatively few miles. If we expect people to travel a long distance, we shall limit the number of people available to sit as magistrates. Therefore, I believe that the debate on the word "local" is important.
	I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in the debate. I shall read it carefully and see where we go from here. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This may be a convenient moment to take a break in the Committee's proceedings until 8.30 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

House resumed.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 7.30 to 8.30 p.m.]

Courts Bill [HL]

House again in Committee on Clause 8.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords I have to inform the House that in Divisions 3, 4, 5 and 6 this afternoon, the numbers voting Not-content should have been recorded as follows: in Division 3, 375; Division 4, 338; Division 5, 358; and Division 6, 317. In all cases that is one less than stated on the annunciator.

Baroness Seccombe: moved Amendment No. 37:
	Page 4, line 19, at end insert—
	"( ) In making an order under subsection (2) or (4), the Lord Chancellor shall—
	(a) make provision for the continuation of the employment of those justices' clerks who are currently employed, without imposing any requirement for a process of re-appointment; and
	(b) have regard to the importance of retaining a link between existing benches of justices and their justices' clerk."

Baroness Seccombe: This amendment seeks to ensure that if the Lord Chancellor exercises his power under subsection (4) of this clause and alters local petty sessions areas, that will not necessitate the reappointment of existing clerks. Not only would that be a time-consuming and potentially costly exercise; it would also affect the stability of the justices' clerks' employment.
	The amendment seeks to meet some of the concerns expressed by the Justices' Clerks' Society in its response to the White Paper and the draft Bill. It is of the view that it is essential that we retain a link between a geographical group of justices, currently called a Bench, and their clerk. Can the Minister give assurances on that matter?
	I was concerned to read the letter by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, of 23rd December, which discussed the area to which justices' clerks will be appointed and which stated:
	"Whilst there will be no statutory link between justices' clerks and local justice areas, we fully expect that clerks will continue to be assigned to local areas".
	That expectation would be abandoned at any stage if the Government so wished.
	As I pointed out at Second Reading, at col. 21 of Hansard, in my view it is essential for justices to have a good working relationship with their clerk. That belief has been wholeheartedly backed by the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees. It is a relationship of neutral trust and respect that can be cultivated only over a period of time. It would be a great loss to the system to disregard the importance of a sustained relationship and most disruptive to the smooth running of the court. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, has eloquently explained the purpose of her amendment. We believe that this is extremely important. We are grateful to her for raising these issues.
	At present, justices' clerks are appointed by the magistrates' courts committee to a particular petty sessions area or areas. If the boundaries of such an area are to be altered and the justices' clerk for that area is to remain in post, he or she has to be reappointed. Under measures in the Bill, justices' clerks will no longer be appointed to a particular area. That means that when the Lord Chancellor makes an order, either setting up or changing the boundaries of local justice areas, it will not be necessary to reappoint justices' clerks.
	However, the Lord Chancellor must have regard to the importance of retaining a link between existing Benches of justices and their clerks. In practice—and I think this will reassure the noble Baroness—we fully expect and desire that justices' clerks will still be assigned to local areas, although that will happen outside statute. That change will provide more flexibility in the deployment of clerks than there is under current arrangements. It will also give justices' clerks the opportunity to work in the headquarters of the new agency or, if appropriate, in the Lord Chancellor's Department more generally.
	I should stress to the House that there is no intention that the Lord Chancellor will, by whim or any other motive, simply move justices' clerks from one area to another. I made it plain earlier that it is our intention that the boundaries of local justice areas will initially stay the same as the petty sessional areas and that the strong links between magistrates and their Benches will also remain. That is part of the equation.
	I give the noble Baroness the assurance that magistrates will continue to be consulted about decisions that affect them, including the assignment of a justices' clerk for their area, although, as I said earlier, that will happen outside the remit of the statute.
	So deployment is not expected as a matter of routine. Behind the amendment is the thought that justices' clerks will be redeployed other than they currently are. There may be occasions when, for personal or perhaps because of court business needs, they will need to be moved around. Therefore, in essence, we want to ensure that the current arrangements work in the future and it is our intention to ensure that we have some flexibility, but the Committee can be assured that we shall carefully consult those who are affected by any future redeployments.

Viscount Tenby: Before the noble Lord sits down, I may be easily pleased, but I am very relieved by what he has just said. It gives some degree of comfort to those who were worried about the issue.
	This is slightly wide of the amendment, but in talking about this critical area of justices' clerks, the people who seem to have been forgotten are the justices' chief executives who must have some fears about their own position in the new set-up. Clearly, it cannot appear on the face of a Bill, but can some comfort be given to me on the subject?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The chief executives will see this important issue as an act of effective management. We have carefully consulted with them. They are very supportive of what we are putting in place. As the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said, this issue is wide of the mark, but they are happy with what we seek to achieve. I think they see it as an essential part of good management and practice.

Viscount Tenby: I am very grateful to the Minister for responding. I understand that one way this issue could be cemented is for the chief executives to be transferred to the Lord Chancellor's Department. At the moment they are employed by the magistrates' courts committees. But it may be that this issue is wide of the mark and I thank the Minister for his answer.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: It goes without saying that all those issues will need to be thought through. More consultation or discussion will resolve any outstanding matters of concern. Our intention is to conduct those consultations properly.
	We shall ensure that we have experienced local managers in place in the new courts agencies. Although the role of the chief executive will move on from the current position, obviously that role will be an important element in the new structure.

Lord Waddington: I confess that I am slightly confused. Paragraph 75 of the Explanatory Notes states:
	"The appointment of justices' clerks is no longer to be limited to petty sessions areas. As justices' clerks are to become civil servants, it is not considered appropriate for justices of the peace to be consulted on the appointment or removal of a justices' clerk".
	Is the noble Lord saying that the clerks are to be consulted, or are they not? It is important to maintain the link between justices and the clerks with whom they work.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I believe that I made it plain in my earlier comments that we do not seek a statutory obligation, rather that discussion and consultation must take place. That goes without saying.

Lord Waddington: Surely that is the opposite of what is set out in the Explanatory Notes. It states in plain language that,
	"it is not considered appropriate for justices of the peace to be consulted".

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall be happy to take away the point that is causing confusion here. The Explanatory Notes make clear what is on the face of the Bill, but outside that we intend to ensure that proper consultation takes place. That is what I now seek to make clear to Members of the Committee.
	The notes are not wrong; they describe what is set out in the Bill. However, as I believe I made plain earlier, we intend to ensure that the maximum consultation and discussion of these matters takes place so that we can put smoothly into place the new service. It is clear that consultation will play a key part in that process and we have always intended for that to be the case. However, we do not require that to be written into the legislation.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Can the Minister confirm that a justices' clerk, although appointed by the Lord Chancellor and not by magistrates' courts committees, and subject to the provisions currently being discussed, will nevertheless be a judicial officer who will at all times maintain judicial or quasi-judicial independence and thus will be able to advise the magistrates as he or she thinks best?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Of course. It goes without saying that that is the role and function of a justices' clerk. The legislation will not change that relationship. Our debate concerns something else, but I wish to give the noble Lord the comfort that we have sought to explain with care that judicial independence is extremely important.

Baroness Seccombe: I am grateful to the Minister for trying to give comfort, but I do not think that much comfort will be derived from the fact that, at this stage, the matter does not appear to have been well thought through.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I hope that I have provided some comfort. Perhaps I may put a specific question to the noble Baroness. What is it that particularly concerns her? I shall be happy to try to address any precise points that I may have missed.

Lord Jones: Not that much further down the Marshalled List we shall come to another tranche of amendments which may provide an opportunity for my noble friend on the Front Bench to come back with his usual forensic skill and outline precisely what the situation is.

Baroness Seccombe: While I had the privilege of serving as a chairman of the Bench for three years, we appointed a new clerk to serve our area. We built up a special relationship with that clerk and I worked very closely with him. What concerns us at present is how we are to ensure that that special relationship between clerk and magistrates continues when we are unsure how the proposals and the consultation will work.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: In the main, the noble Baroness can take comfort from this. We are talking about the quality of the local relationship. Like her, I have many friends who are magistrates; I would even admit to knowing a few clerks. The quality of the relationship will continue. She is right to probe us on this issue; I have made that plain.
	However, there will need to be a change in the organisation's culture and, as I said earlier, flexibility from time to time. Essentially, that is what we are trying to secure and preserve. Like the noble Baroness, we share the objective of ensuring that that closeness of relationship and rapport continues in the new and—we hope and expect—improved service.

Baroness Seccombe: I should hate the Minister to think that I just want to hark back to the past, because that is not true. I think that we understand each other and where we stand on the importance of the relationship between magistrates and their clerks. We shall consult the Justices' Clerks' Society, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Seccombe: moved Amendment No. 38:
	Page 4, line 27, at end insert—
	"(d) such other persons as appear to him to be appropriate"

Baroness Seccombe: The Bill allows the Lord Chancellor to make an order to alter a local justice area in accordance with Clause 8(4), after he has consulted the justices of the peace assigned to the local justice area, the CACs and local authorities.
	The amendment probes what form the consultation will take. Does the Lord Chancellor have to listen to the recommendations made by those groups? What will happen if those interested parties disagree with each other—or unanimously agree, but disagree with the Lord Chancellor? The amendment would add to the burden but also to the flexibility of the consultation process by requiring the Lord Chancellor to consult anyone else whom he may consider appropriate.
	Does the Lord Chancellor think that other groups should be asked their opinion? For example, perhaps the Magistrates' Association should be consulted. What about Victim Support, citizens' advice bureaux, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, or other, similar, groups? All of those groups have first-hand knowledge of the experience of court users, but may not be members of the CACs. I look forward to hearing the Minister's answers to those questions. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is a simple and well-intentioned amendment. We intend to ensure that the Lord Chancellor consults widely and as seems appropriate. I shall not rule in or out particular organisations from the consultation process. The noble Baroness identified the Magistrates' Association and the citizens' advice bureaux. She might have added the local law centre, if there is one, the local authority or other organisations, such as women's centres, refuges for battered wives, and so on. At some point, it may be appropriate to consult all of those organisations.
	That is why subsection (6) sets out in terms the people whom the Lord Chancellor must consult—in particular, the relevant court administration council. But if the Lord Chancellor believes it to be in the interest of the service to consult more widely, I am sure that he will want to do so. We want to draw wisdom from wherever we can. That is sensible.
	So the spirit behind the amendment is fine; it is not necessary to write it into the Bill. For those reasons, I hope that she will feel confident that she can withdraw it, given that we are with her in spirit.

Baroness Seccombe: Having listened to the Minister's view of all the different bodies that may be consulted, I feel much comforted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 8 agreed to.
	Clause 9 agreed to.
	Clause 10 [Appointment of lay justices etc.]:

Baroness Seccombe: moved Amendment No. 39:
	Page 5, line 3, at end insert—
	"(1A) The Lord Chancellor shall appoint such a number of lay justices as appears to him to be appropriate for the purpose of discharging the work of the magistrates' courts.
	(1B) To assist him in discharging his duties under subsections (1) and (1B), the Lord Chancellor shall publish within six months of Royal Assent a national recruitment strategy for the recruitment of lay justices."

Baroness Seccombe: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 41. Over the past few years, there has been much discussion about the role of lay justices. I welcome the commitment of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the retention of the lay magistracy.
	The first part of Amendment No. 39 seeks to gain clarification from the Government of the intended role of lay magistrates as distinct from district judges. What percentage of the magistrates' court load does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor anticipate should be carried by lay magistrates; or does that percentage differ according to whether the courts sit in metropolitan or other areas? What research has he undertaken to predict the number of lay and employed magistrates that will be needed over the next 10 years? We understand that he has commissioned a national strategy for the recruitment of magistrates. What stage has that work reached? When will the results be published?
	The second part of the amendment would require the Lord Chancellor to publish a national recruitment strategy within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I hope that the strategy will be published long before then. It is vital that there are sufficient lay magistrates throughout England and Wales, and that those magistrates truly reflect the communities that they serve. Although we on these Benches recognise that there is clear merit in giving magistrates a nationwide jurisdiction and having a national recruitment strategy, we firmly believe that magistrates must continue to reflect the local communities that they serve. A fundamental strength of the lay magistracy is its strong association with local communities. We are worried that there is a danger of local justice being diminished if magistrates are appointed through recruitment or transfer in a way that dilutes the links with local communities. I hope that the Minister will now be able to clarify the position and assure us that he will publish his recruitment strategy within the time limit set out in the amendment.
	Amendment No. 41 would require the Lord Chancellor to produce an annual report setting out the optimum number of lay magistrates for each local justice area. That could then be used to track the success of the national recruitment strategy and to assist in its development as may prove necessary, as the demographic profile of each area may change over time. I am concerned that in the present climate it may become more difficult to attract volunteers to the magistracy. Employers, particularly small companies, are under pressure and find it difficult to release people for 26 half-days a year. Employees can suffer from loss of promotion, pension provision difficulties and, in some cases, outright denial of the opportunity to serve. It must be in all our interests to encourage employers and employees that serving as a magistrate is a useful and important voluntary community service. It would be a sad day if volunteers could be attracted only from the public sector or from those not employed. I beg to move.

Lord Borrie: I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, for the speech that she has just made. The noble Baroness raised several important points about recruitment policy in the Lord Chancellor's Department with regard to the appointment of magistrates throughout the country. She also raised important points about the need to stress—to employers, in particular—the value to the community of magistrates' service. In all parts of the House, we value that service and wish to encourage and promote it into the more distant future.
	The Committee is now coming to the discussion of a series of clauses dealing with the appointment and work of lay magistrates and of district judges. It would be interesting to know whether the Lord Chancellor's Department has a view on whether, over the next few years at any rate, there should be a further increase in the number of professional judges—district judges—such as there has been over the past 20 or 30 years. Or have we reached a point of balance that may survive and continue for some time?
	I apologise for raising a matter that is slightly beyond the terms of this useful amendment, but, at Second Reading, I asked a question to which I did not get an answer, despite the otherwise comprehensive and lengthy responses made by my noble friend the Minister to so many questions. I did not get an answer to my query about whether there was value in having a district judge—a professional judge—sitting with, say, two lay magistrates on certain types of case, which, because of their complexity or seriousness, might justify such a combination. That would be distinct from the present position, in which, in magistrates' courts, there is either a lay magistrate or a district judge, not both.

Lord Waddington: Perhaps I may be excused for taking the opportunity offered by the amendment to raise the fact that Clause 10 means that responsibility for the appointment of magistrates in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside will be transferred from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the Lord Chancellor. It may be worth reminding the Committee that, as recently as 2000, there was wide consultation as to whether the proposal should go forward. I have every reason to believe that the result of that process was that virtually nobody wanted any change. Yet, the Bill takes the opportunity to thrust aside all the recommendations that were made to the Government at that time. Once again, in the interests of dull uniformity, a historic system of appointment is to be done away with.
	Chancellors of the Duchy have made the appointments since the 14th century. I should like to know what great public mischief is perpetrated by that system. There is none. Everybody agrees that magistrates must be appointed so that they reflect the community in which they serve, and nobody sensibly suggests that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will fail in his or her duty to follow any guidelines laid down by the Lord Chancellor. However, it seems like another example of the Government's obsession for centralising responsibility in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. Coming from the county palatine, I resent greatly the taking of that step, particularly as an attempt to railroad through Parliament a decision of the Government that got an almost unanimous thumbs-down when the matter went out to consultation a few years ago. I am horrified.

The Earl of Sandwich: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, for tabling this amendment. It gives me an opportunity to say something about Dorset and to register a concern there about the loss of local knowledge. I believe this concern is shared by many people in more remote areas where court houses have been steadily closing. I apologise if I am repeating concerns already made.
	The concern is that with modernisation and efficiency—something which we all generally welcome—often comes a desire for administrative neatness, a disregard for detail and, worse still, a degree of intolerance or ignorance of the complex lives of individuals and families, especially those families living on the margin in rural areas. That concern is well summarised by an experienced magistrate in Dorset, who is a neighbour of mine. He states:
	"It sometimes seems to me that the law makers fail to understand how minimal and marginal some people's lives are. What we must have in any Court organization is the ability for the local, especially rural, realities to be fully understood and for mechanisms and systems to be there to make sure that fully informed decisions can be justly made. This is where I fear that central control is unlikely to serve the community adequately unless very clear thinking constructs the ability for all sections of the community to be properly represented".
	Adequate representation is always hard to achieve, but there is no substitute for local knowledge by local people. The more we retain lay magistrates who have this knowledge, the better it will be for local people. The Magistrates' Association has made this point powerfully—so have many others in this debate. I understand what the Minister said previously about the shared intent. However, it is a concern better understood by the judiciary, who have underlined the importance of lay magistrates, than it is by the Government and those who drafted the Bill and the somewhat inadequate Explanatory Notes.

Lord Jones: As regards Amendment No. 39, very succinctly moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, I want first to emphasise that lay magistrates are volunteers. They work very hard; they give up a great deal of their time; and they work without payment. What are the Government doing to recruit younger magistrates—both male and female?
	Looking at the pattern of crime—we all know what it is—it would seem to be relevant to have more younger magistrates who might, with some reason, be able to understand why so many 18 to 24 year-old men and women go hopelessly off the rails and find themselves in the courts. I emphasise the comments about employers made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe. She said that the small employers find it difficult to release employees to carry out their duties as magistrates and I know magistrates who support that view. They also tell me that it is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain time off for such duties from larger employers. That is now having a bearing on the recruitment of magistrates. Do the Government have any plans or policies and are they engaging in any pilot schemes?
	I, too, want to refer to district judges. The Minister acknowledged that magistrates should be consulted before a district judge is appointed or assigned to a local area. Perhaps my noble friend will undertake to redouble the efforts currently under way to recruit more lay justices before going nap on the wholesale appointment of district judges. If the recruitment of lay justices were given higher priority by those involved, if the determination of the authorities were to attract and recruit more men and women to the Bench, the need to recruit many district judges would be less obvious. If that were the case, the numerous hard-working magistrates would feel that they had a better chance as the changes of the Bill are implemented.

Lord Dixon-Smith: I am prompted to rise by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Waddington relating to the Duchy of Lancaster. If I understand his remarks correctly, a recent consultation document shows that the local view is clearly for the situation to remain as it is. However, the provisions of the Bill change that and disregard the local view.
	The issue is fundamental. So often we have heard from the Government Benches that these matters are still subject to consultation and that they have not been decided. They say that until the consultation is complete they are not prepared to take a decision. However, in this instance the consultation is complete and the view of the local people who were interested in the matter has been wholly disregarded. What faith can we then have in the rest of the consultation process?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall deal first with the last point, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. We wrote in January, and placed a copy in the Library of the House, to say that we fully consulted the Duchy of Lancaster and are not aware of any disagreement between the Duchy and ourselves in relation to the proposals that we—

Lord Waddington: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. With respect, history has gone on. The consultation exercise was launched in January 2000. I received a letter from the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in 2001 stating that a consultation exercise had taken place and as a result of the replies he was not going ahead with the proposal. I do not know what has happened since, but the noble Baroness knows perfectly well that what is in the Bill is contrary to the results of the consultation which took place in 2000 to 2001.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Of course I hear what the noble Lord says with such passion. However, as he will know, consultation in relation to what should happen as a result of the process of unification has been taking place throughout the period. The recommendations made by Lord Justice Auld have been fully considered and we consulted on the form that a unified procedure should take. I can reassure Members of the Committee that we have fully consulted with the Duchy of Lancaster.
	In addition, Members of the Committee will know from what I said earlier that in the sequence of visits which we make around the country, all those who are currently the responsibility of the Duchy of Lancaster will have an opportunity to make known how they wish the arrangements in their area to be managed. I shall of course ask for further and better particulars on the matter in the hope that I shall be able to satisfy the noble Lord more fully. I was not aware that there was any difficulty on it between ourselves and the Duchy of Lancaster. If I am proved wrong, I shall of course write to Members of the Committee.

Lord Renton: What the noble Baroness has said is most interesting, but surely the situation she has described should be expressed in the Bill.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The situation is expressed in the Bill. We are seeking a national unified administration in which one department will be responsible as opposed to two, and in which the responsibility will be discharged in a more holistic way. I emphasise that word, to the delight of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who I know is charmed by it.

Lord Waddington: Will the Minister try to understand my resentment? In the Explanatory Notes to Clause 10, almost as a throwaway line at the end, paragraph 51 states:
	"A further effect of the repeal of the JPA 1997, and the provision of this clause, is to transfer the current responsibilities of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in respect of the appointment of magistrates within the Duchy, to the Lord Chancellor".
	There is nothing about that on the face of the Bill. No one but a very assiduous reader of the Explanatory Notes would have known that this opportunity was being taken to reverse the results of a consultation exercise which took place less than two years ago.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hear what the noble Lord says. I reiterate what I said earlier: that the consultation which has gone on since then has been within the context of the proposed strategy to unify all courts.
	The repeal of the 1997 Act—

Baroness Seccombe: Who was consulted and when? What were the results of that consultation?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall be happy to make the necessary inquiries. The information I have is that the Duchy was consulted and is content. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington—

Baroness Seccombe: Who was consulted?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have said what I have said. As I have reiterated to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, I shall certainly make further inquiries and seek to give the Committee further and better details of the nature and extent of the consultation and the precise information we have received as a result. To the best of my knowledge and belief, this was not a matter of concern before it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. I have said that I will write to noble Lords, and I will.
	I give way because I notice that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are consulting.

Lord Waddington: I have been prompted that apparently my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral raised this matter on Second Reading. I am therefore surprised that the Minister is not aware of the great concern about it.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wrote to the Duchy of Lancaster specifically on this point. I have said that I will take the issue away with me and try to provide the noble Lord with further and better particulars. There was consultation within government, including with the Duchy, in relation to a unified court structure.
	Let me say straightaway that I accept the way in which the amendment has been brought forward. The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said that it was a probing amendment designed to secure further and better information. I hope I shall be able to provide her with that today.
	I should say to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that we understand the necessity to ensure that the delivery of the service remains local and that local magistrates continue to have a close connection with the areas in which they serve. All those issues are taken on board and are well said, if I may respectfully say so.
	The current position is that about 95.5 per cent of all criminal work is dealt with by magistrates. At the moment, there are 95 district judges. It is anticipated that that figure will rise to 130; that is what has been settled. But it is possible that the figure may rise to 160 if workloads look likely to require such an improvement. At present, there are 29,000 lay magistrates; we anticipate that an extra 3,000 may be needed over the next three years. So we do not see a change occurring in the balance between district judges and magistrates.
	The noble Baronesses, Lady Seccombe and Lady Anelay, say that the Lord Chancellor has shown great commitment to lay magistrates. That commitment is unswerving. We value the lay magistrates; we think they do an incredibly useful job. They are the biggest volunteer group we have, and we treasure them. I cannot say enough about their virtues and the fact that we do not wish to see their demise.
	We are hopeful that the strategy will be published early this year, certainly within the six-month period that the noble Lady, Lady Seccombe, suggested. I shall say a little of the work that we have done on the strategy and seek to answer some of the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Jones about its ambit. There has been concern about the pressures put on magistrates as a result of the workload. Ministers are considering the draft strategy and discussions are taking place to procure full funding for the project. Once resources are available, the strategy will be published.
	We acknowledge that employed magistrates face certain problems undertaking their duties. We intend to explore methods for dealing with those issues within the strategy framework. We will also target employers and try to persuade them of the benefits of employing magistrates.
	The strategy's aim is to encourage applications from as wide a cross-section of the community as possible. It will build upon the encouraging recruitment trends that have emerged over recent years. In 2000–01, for example, the proportion of new appointments drawn from ethnic minority communities rose to 9.3 per cent from 8.6 per cent the year before. The figure was 6.5 per cent in 1997 and only 5 per cent in 1994. So we are addressing recruitment issues.
	The national recruitment strategy will complement two other important initiatives aimed at promoting the lay magistracy and broadening the pool from which it is drawn. The Judiciary for All scheme and the mock trial competition are both very important in this regard. Judiciary for All aims to encourage more people from ethnic minority groups to apply to become magistrates. The project has now been piloted in seven areas, with 47 individuals shadowing 94 magistrates. It has been very well received and is proving successful. I take this opportunity to compliment not only the 47 individuals who participated but, very importantly, the 94 magistrates who gave up their time to participate.
	While the shadowing scheme is aimed at the over-25s, the mock trial competition is raising the profile of the magistracy among secondary school students. Run by the Citizenship Foundation, with the support of the Lord Chancellor's Department, the competition has been designed to fit in with the new national curriculum subject of citizenship studies. This year, 350 schools entered the competition, giving 4,500 students a taste of life in the judicial system and a sense of the contribution magistrates make to their local communities. The strategy will also explore further ideas for promoting the magistracy. All that work is being undertaken by volunteers in the magistrates' courts. We welcome it and believe that we are getting good results from it.
	I refer to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Borrie. I apologise for not responding to it properly. I shall endeavour to do so. I shall write to my noble friend in response to his interesting idea about magistrates sitting with district judges.
	We intend to make an assessment of the workload, try to predict better what will be needed as a result of the criminal justice reform programme and respond with a proper strategy. Throughout that process we shall continue to consult all the relevant agencies and individuals. I refrain from referring to stakeholders in case I excite further attention.

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Of course, I agree with everything that has been said about the importance of the lay magistracy, especially as regards attracting members of ethnic minorities to serve on it. But we need to remember that there is an inherent problem with the lay magistracy in that its members cannot sit continuously for more than a limited period. Certainly half days would be highly inefficient. We shall always need district judges to deal with carry-over lists. I refer also to cases that do not last more than a day. Nevertheless, if a case is begun late in the afternoon there are great advantages in being able to continue it the next day. One may not be able to do that with members of the lay magistracy for the reason that I have already mentioned.
	It is not right just to look at the caseload; one must look at the nature of that caseload. There is a further problem here. If magistrates are to be confined to short cases, due to the amount of time that they are able to allocate to cases, they may encounter the experience that my wife had in moving from Bow Street, which she found an extremely interesting Bench—as I am sure it is—to the City of London Bench, which involved giving notices to motorists asking them to explain why they had not said who was the owner of the vehicle in question. That is enough to drive anyone to drink, or at any rate to resign from the Bench. One must look at the quality of the case which can be given to the lay magistrate and try to make it as interesting as possible.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I resist the temptation to point out that the Greek word holistikos is used as a euphemism by this Government for the more easily understood latinate "centralising". Without wishing to get involved in the affairs of the Duchy of Lancaster, what is the role envisaged for the current local advisory committees which assist the Lord Chancellor in the appointment of magistrates? Will they continue as before? There is nothing in the Bill about them. Do we assume that they will continue to fulfil their role? If so, who will appoint them? What powers will they have?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I reassure the noble Lord that that issue will not be on the face of the Bill. There is nothing on the face of any Bill at the moment in relation to the advisory committees. The Lord Chancellor will continue to need the advice and support of those who advise him in relation to the appointments that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned. Those advisory groups may be restructured but certainly the need to have some form of advisory committee will remain. I cannot tell the noble Lord exactly what form it will take. I hope that we shall be able to consider some of that detail in due course when we consider the structure of the guidance and the framework document.

Lord Jones: I was glad to hear the Minister's response to some of the questions that I posed. She gave a handsome reply for which I thank her. I believe that she referred to the strategy with regard to the 29,000 magistrates in England and Wales and mentioned a likely increase of some 3,000. I know that the Minister is up to speed on matters concerning Wales, because I heard her say in a previous debate to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that she would not cede one inch. Will she say how many of the 3,000 will be itemised for Wales over a period of years? How many extra magistrates are envisaged for Wales?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I cannot say how many are specifically targeted for Wales, just as I cannot say how many will go to the South West, the North East, and so on. However, the overall figure is likely to increase as the needs increase. We must make an assessment of the needs.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, made some valuable points about quality, nature and balance. All those issues will have to be put into the pot when we decide what the balance should be in any given area. I endorse the point that members of the judiciary, whether they be lay or professional, should have interesting and challenging work to which they can become committed. That is certainly part of the thinking that we will build into any plans that we make, whether for the professional judiciary, with which the noble and learned Lord is especially familiar, or the lay magistracy. Both are equally valuable.

Viscount Tenby: I shall be brief, as it is late. I wish to pick up the ball that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, punted so expertly up the hill, in relation to advisory committees. Is it not the case that a problem with such committees for as long as anyone can remember is that all their activities are conducted with a nod and a wink? Nobody knows who they are or what their terms of reference are. At a time when our affairs are increasingly about accountability, is it not time that those committees were shepherded complainingly into the floodlight?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hear what the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, says. He is right to say that transparency and accountability will be important. We want magistrates to continue to have the full confidence of the communities that they serve. Advisory committees have performed a useful role and we hope that they will continue. The shadowing scheme that we have put in place, which allows young people to think concretely of the magistracy, should help us, because more people from a wider spectrum will volunteer to become magistrates, which must be good.

Baroness Seccombe: Little did I think, when I moved the amendment, that we would have such an interesting and varied debate. I am grateful to everyone who has taken part.
	Perhaps the most difficult issue for us is that we do not see any justification for the change of appointment by the Duchy of Lancaster. We will raise the issue again under Clause 98, and on Report we may table another amendment. Amendment No. 47 meets the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Jones, so he will have an opportunity to make his point at that stage.
	My experience of district judges has been positive in so far as they have been used only in a long case, when it would have been difficult to find magistrates to cover the case. As my noble friend Lady Anelay said, in family courts cases can drift on into the next day, so there is that commitment by magistrates to be available, which is credit worthy.
	The possibility of appointing 3,000 extra magistrates and more district judges is interesting. Is that envisaged because of changes in the Criminal Justice Bill, which means that magistrates will cover more cases with more responsibility? Will that bring about the need for more magistrates?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As the noble Baroness knows, it is certainly right—it is foreshadowed in the Criminal Justice Bill—that lay magistrates will have an increased jurisdiction. Although we cannot predict the precise number, we are trying to make an assessment of what the needs might be. The current projection—not simply because of the Criminal Justice Bill, but because of a number of other changes we are making—is that that figure looks possible. As she also rightly said, we are doing work on the family court. As Members of the Committee will know, special courts are being piloted in certain parts of the country to address domestic violence and other issues. Specialist magistrates' panels are being recruited to sit and do that type of work. We are therefore looking much more broadly across the piece, and not only because of the Criminal Justice Bill, to see how we might better enable the magistracy to deliver the high-quality work of which we know they are capable.

Lord Jones: In her reply on advisory committees, my noble friend the Minister deployed the word "transparency". Does the Bill presume that Lords Lieutenant will continue to play a leading role in the advisory committees? Does the Bill specifically refer to Lords Lieutenant and advisory committees? How do the Government see the advisory committee in all of that?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Lords Lieutenant, of course, continue to be involved. The Bill does not mention anything about advisory committees. I was trying to respond to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about whether they would continue to be involved although they are not mentioned in the Bill. I was happy to give that reassurance. The Lord Chancellor sets out the terms on which advisory committees will operate, and those terms will continue.

Baroness Seccombe: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Seccombe: moved Amendment No. 40:
	Page 5, line 10, leave out "or on behalf of"

Baroness Seccombe: This is a very short probing amendment. I am unsure when lay magistrates would have need to sit in a local justice area to which they were not assigned, although I understand that that could be possible by virtue of the office they hold. The Bill states that that may be done only in accordance with arrangements made by the Lord Chancellor. Our amendment seeks to leave out the power to delegate this function to another person.
	This is, as I said, a probing amendment to ask the Minister what is behind the drafting "or on behalf of" in Clause 10. To whom would the Lord Chancellor delegate this function, and in what circumstances would this power be delegated? I beg to move.

Lord Renton: The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, has rendered a useful service by tabling this probing amendment. She may have had this point in mind, but I should like specifically to ask the Minister: if that is done on behalf of the Lord Chancellor, who is going to do it?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: In drafting this clause, we envisaged that arrangements for magistrates to sit outside their local justice area could be made informally by court officials. The phrase "or on behalf of" was intended to cover the eventuality that a relevant court administrator might be a contractor. It is arguable that the amendment, if accepted, could potentially hamper the administration of the courts by preventing contracted-out court staff from making these arrangements. That would be inconsistent with Clause 2 of the Bill.
	We have given assurances that use of the wider jurisdiction will not go against magistrates' wishes. I should like to repeat some remarks which the Lord Chancellor made last year to the Magistrates' Association annual general meeting. He said:
	"Let me assure you: you will not be pressed to travel long distances to hear cases. This would fly in the face of local justice and the voluntary nature of your office; and would not, in any event, make economic sense. The greater flexibility provided by national jurisdiction is intended to allow you to be reassigned quickly if you change address, or to sit at a Court near to your work, or to provide for circumstances where it is inappropriate for a local bench to hear a case. I will be under a statutory duty to assign Magistrates to local areas and, under no circumstances, will you be pressed to serve in areas against your will. Greater flexibility in the deployment of Magistrates will remain subject to the primacy of local justice and individual availability".
	We envisage a case similar to that in the Court Service. If one area is under pressure, it may be possible on an ad hoc basis to ask a magistrate whether they would be so kind as to sit for a short period elsewhere, particularly if it is near their place of work or something of that nature. It is not intended that magistrates would be obliged in any way to sit in an area in which they did not agree to sit.

Lord Waddington: I am a little puzzled. When I talked about Clause 5, which referred to advice to the Lord Chancellor, I suggested that in practice the court administration council would give its advice to the agency chief officer. On Clause 10, I am therefore not sure what is the point of the "or on behalf of". When arrangements are made by the Lord Chancellor, surely they can be made by an officer of the agency who is, as it were, his alter ego. Have I got that wrong? I am interested in the constitutional significance of setting up such an agency. I would have thought that any officer of the agency could act for the Lord Chancellor. In that case what is the point of those words?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As I tried to make clear, the words cover the eventuality that a relevant court administrator might be a contractor. That would be very rare, but it might be the case. If it were, it would enable the administrator to make such an arrangement. It is not proposed that that is likely to happen often or at all; the words merely provide for it as an eventuality.

Baroness Seccombe: That is a very intriguing response. It seems that it puts the power for magistrates to sit in other areas in the hands of court officials, with no mention of the chairman of the Bench being involved.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Of course, the normal consultation would continue. At the moment, it is very difficult for a magistrate in one area to assist in another court to which they are not assigned. One of the joys of the national nature of the jurisdiction will, we hope, be greater mobility for the magistracy and the greater use to be made of its valuable resource.
	I am sure that the noble Baroness will know of a number of instances where a magistrate will say, for example, "I cannot sit in my local area because I have relocated for employment purposes from Suffolk to London. I still live in Suffolk but I work in London. Although I could sit for you in an area close to my work for half a day or in the afternoon, I cannot sit elsewhere". We will be able to make arrangements that we hope will suit magistrates, take advantage of their expertise and make the system work more easily. That has worked well in the Court Service.

Baroness Seccombe: I thank the Minister for that reply. We must obviously think hard about this matter and shall consult the Magistrates' Association. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
	Clause 10 agreed to.
	Clause 11 [Retirement and removal of lay justices]:

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 42:
	Page 5, line 27, leave out "Chancellor" and insert "Chief Justice"

Lord Goodhart: Subsection (6) of Clause 11 provides that:
	"The Lord Chancellor may remove a lay justice from his office by an instrument on behalf and in the name of Her Majesty . . . on the ground of incapacity or misbehaviour, or . . . if he is satisfied that the lay justice is declining or neglecting to take a proper part in the exercise of his functions as a justice of the peace".
	That power caused some concern to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which said in paragraph 33 of its report on this Bill:
	"At present, the Lord Chancellor can dismiss a JP at will. That gives rise to a risk that a JP might be regarded as insufficiently independent of the executive to ensure that litigants are receiving a hearing by an independent tribunal as required by ECHR Article 6.1. Clause 11(6) would restrict the Lord Chancellor's power of removal somewhat. There remains a potential problem of institutional independence, as the person making the decision to remove a JP would be a member of the executive—in fact, a Cabinet Minister".
	The amendment has been tabled in order to raise with the Government the concerns of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and to hear what response they make. In the amendment, we have proposed that the power to remove a JP from office should be conferred not on the Lord Chancellor but on the Lord Chief Justice, who is plainly an independent person with no role as a member of the executive.
	I recognise that subsection (6) imposes some restrictions on the present powers of the Lord Chancellor. I also recognise that a decision of the Lord Chancellor under subsection (6) would plainly be judicially reviewable. However, I believe that there is some force in the comments of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and certainly, prima facie, it would seem that it is inappropriate for a member of the executive to be in a position to remove from office a member of the judiciary. I beg to move.

Lord Renton: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mainly for the reasons that he has given. But I wish to add two short points in addition to those arguments. The first is that the responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor seem to increase with every Session of Parliament. Indeed, I believe that in the years to come the Lord Chancellor will need to have a ministerial deputy with very heavy responsibilities. Of course, one does not know who it may be. That is my first point in favour of the amendment.
	The other point is that the removal of a lay justice on grounds of incapacity or misbehaviour or because,
	"the lay justice is declining or neglecting to take a proper part in the exercise of his functions",
	brings one to the administration of criminal law. It is the Lord Chief Justice who, above all other members of the judiciary, is responsible for the administration of the criminal law. Therefore, I believe that it would be much more appropriate for the Lord Chief Justice to bear the responsibility for removing a lay justice, who deals only with criminal law and some other minor matters, such as granting licences for the drinking of alcohol.

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: This is a very wide question. As I recollect, the position is that circuit judges are liable to removal by the Lord Chancellor, for reasons which may not be exactly the same but in substance are the same. If we are to say that it is necessary in this case for the Lord Chief Justice to be the remover, the same must be true—at least I think it must be true—for circuit judges. That would be a constitutional amendment of considerable importance. The views of the Strasbourg court as outlined in the case concerning the Channel Islands are good theory but are they good practice? It may be that one would have to look carefully at how the European Convention on Human Rights fits in with this.
	The point I make is that this is a much wider question. Before we make this amendment I believe that some consideration must be given to the position of circuit judges.

Lord Borrie: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, is right in relation to circuit judges. I believe the relevant Act was the Courts Act 1971. However, Clause 17 of this Bill deals with district judges. There is provision for appointment by the Lord Chancellor and a subsection which provides for removal by the Lord Chancellor for incapacity or misbehaviour, which are the precise words contained in this clause.
	I share with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the view that the Lord Chief Justice is an incredibly important person in the administration of criminal justice. However, so far as I know he has never been directly involved in, as distinct from being consulted on, the appointment of judges at any level. He does not have the machinery, office and so forth to deal with that, whereas the Lord Chancellor's Department does.

Lord Renton: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord to bear in mind that the responsibilities of appointment of lay justices is quite different from their removal on grounds which may be familiar to the Lord Chief Justice.

Lord Borrie: The noble Lord is right. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, has made the point about circuit judges. We shall shortly discuss Clause 17, which deals with district judges. The power is given, with certain restrictions, to the Lord Chancellor's Department for the removal of district judges. It seems to me that it would be very odd indeed to isolate lay justices as a particular group of people who could be removed by the Lord Chief Justice. That would cause all kinds of practical difficulties.
	I trust and hope that the wording of the Bill as it stands, with any necessary amendments if the view of the Joint Committee has to be taken even more cautiously than we already do, will ensure that there is no possibility of any effective challenge under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Goodhart, for moving the amendment that makes the Lord Chief Justice responsible for the removal of magistrates from office by instrument on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen. From the debate we have just had, this has proved to be an important issue. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and my noble friend Lord Borrie make a good and telling point. We are trying to ensure parity of treatment in relation to the way in which the magistracy and the judiciary are treated.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to try to allay some of the concerns raised in relation to this matter. I do not think that I can accept the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for the indication that it is of a probing nature. It would be odd indeed if the Lord Chancellor should appoint justices on behalf of Her Majesty but the Lord Chief Justice should, where necessary, remove them.
	I also note that this would have far-reaching constitutional implications, some of which have been highlighted already by noble Lords in the debate. The Lord Chancellor is at the moment the head of the judiciary under Section 1 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, and it is he who has the power to remove from office both circuit and district judges, pursuant to Section 24 of the Courts Act 1971, Section 1OA of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 and Section 11 of the County Courts Act 1984. The amendment would not be consistent with that position.
	I also note that there are already safeguards in place to remedy magistrates against arbitrary or improper removal from office. The circumstances in which the Lord Chancellor exercises the power of removal are described in the directions for advisory committees on justices of the peace. Those directions define also the procedure by which a justice may be removed on recommendation to the Lord Chancellor by a committee of justices. Shortly after the Human Rights Act 1998 came fully into force, in two cases in magistrates' courts in the North East of England it was argued that justices of the peace lacked a compatible independence. But on both occasions those arguments were rejected by the courts concerned on the ground that there existed adequate safeguards.
	No appeals were brought against those decisions. Additionally, the decision of the Lord Chancellor to remove a justice, or any other judicial office holder, from office is susceptible to judicial review by the High Court itself. In that sense, therefore, the removal of a justice could not be effected without judicial acquiescence and never could be effected improperly or arbitrarily. So, we suggest that the amendment would not be necessary. The issue has been discussed with the Lord Chief Justice. He is content with the position as it currently stands and is of the view that the amendment is not appropriate. I hope that that is a full explanation as to the current position in response to the concerns raised by the Committee and by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.

Lord Goodhart: Despite what the Minister has said, I remain firmly of the opinion that it would be more appropriate that powers to dismiss members of the judiciary—whether circuit judges, magistrates or district judges—should be removed from the Lord Chancellor. That is to a large extent for the reason raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton; namely, that the Lord Chancellor is increasingly a Minister of Justice and in the case of the present holder of the office because he is a major political figure within the Cabinet.
	Nevertheless, I accept that this would be a change that would have important constitutional consequences. My present view is that it is probably inappropriate to raise this issue on a side wind on a Bill that is mainly devoted to other purposes. So I shall take the matter away and consider it. I do not undertake that I shall not bring it back, but at present I think that it is more likely that I shall not do so.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord. I should also say that we have looked at the conventional case law. It establishes that appointment and potentially the removal of justices by the executive does not need to be inherently incompatible with the independence required of them by Article 6, provided that—crucially—there exists appropriate objective safeguards against improper interference. We believe there are. So, the case law seems to support it. I say that in order to assist the noble Lord at this stage because I do not want him to burden himself unnecessarily by bringing issues back to the House which can perhaps rest where they are.

Lord Goodhart: The noble Baroness has raised a point of which I am well aware. With regard to the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court is likely to recognise the existence of judicial review and to acknowledge that it is an important safeguard in a case of this kind. The court might not have done so had it remained that the Lord Chancellor had an unfettered power to remove a magistrate without having to give reasons for doing so.
	Having said that, from a constitutional point of view it is desirable to make the change, but at present I do not think that this is either the right time or place in which to do it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 11 agreed to.
	Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.

Lord Grocott: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at four minutes before ten o'clock.